Minister say's jamming OK in UK

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Barden of England
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 06:48 PM

I still think the council is wrong on this one. Subsection (4) applies to live unamplified music (I've highlighted it in italics). I also do not believe that the conditions for 'public safety' and/or 'the prevention of crime and disorder' apply between the hours of 8am and Midnight for live unamplified music. I believe that the Council are in contravention of the act on this one.
=================================================================
177    Dancing and live music in certain small premises

      (1) Subsection (2) applies where-

(a) a premises licence authorises-
(i) the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises, and
(ii) the provision of music entertainment, and
(b) the premises-
(i) are used primarily for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises, and
(ii) have a permitted capacity of not more than 200 persons.
      (2) At any time when-

(a) the premises-
(i) are open for the purposes of being used for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises, and
(ii) are being used for the provision of music entertainment, and
(b) subsection (4) does not apply,
any licensing authority imposed condition of the premises licence which relates to the provision of music entertainment does not have effect, in relation to the provision of that entertainment, unless it falls within subsection (5) or (6).

      (3) Subsection (4) applies where-

(a) a premises licence authorises the provision of music entertainment, and
(b) the premises have a permitted capacity of not more than 200 persons.
      (4) At any time between the hours of 8 a.m. and midnight when the premises-

(a) are being used for the provision of music entertainment which consists of-
(i) the performance of unamplified, live music, or
(ii) facilities for enabling persons to take part in entertainment within sub-paragraph (i), but
(b) are not being used for the provision of any other description of regulated entertainment,
any licensing authority imposed condition of the premises licence which relates to the provision of the music entertainment does not have effect, in relation to the provision of that entertainment, unless it falls within subsection (6).

      (5) A condition falls within this subsection if the premises licence specifies that the licensing authority which granted the licence considers the imposition of the condition necessary on one or both of the following grounds-

(a) the prevention of crime and disorder,
(b) public safety.
      (6) A condition falls within this subsection if, on a review of the premises licence-

(a) it is altered so as to include a statement that this section does not apply to it, or
(b) it is added to the licence and includes such a statement.
================================================================

Subsection (6)(b) does not apply as this is not a review of the premises license.

What are your thoughts and how do you read this one?
John Barden

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 06:08 AM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1746998,00.html

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: AlexB
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 10:38 AM

I have always found myself weak at reading and understanding legislation- it is all gobbledy-gook to me. Could someone explain to me in plain English the Licencing Act, particularly the points about live music and its affect on sessions and other folk events please?

Could someone also explain the Temporary Events notices stuff that they are now consulting on?

In both cases I cannot really come up with arguments if I cannot understand what they are going on about. Am I the only person who cannot read them or do they just write these things incomprehensibly on purpose?

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 12:03 PM

It is impossible to accurately rephrase any Act in plain English, because everything hinges on the exact words used and the context in which they were used. Any rephrasing is necessarily an interpretation, and that may not be the interpretion the courts use.

However, it is possible to give a general flavour of an Act, as long as it understood that that is all it is. So here is my stab at the music aspect of the Act. There are similar issues surrounding sports and plays.

So, broadly, almost every performance of live music where someone is entertained, anywhere apart from a few special places, will need a licence from November and generally there will be a fee. In some cases, such as church halls, it will need a licence even though no fee is payable. What constitutes an audience and entertainment is unknown at this point. For example, a session in which most of the time everyone plays, but occasionally one person plays solo is unclear: the silent 'players' might constitute an audience.

The licence can be permanently associated with a place (like a pub), or it can be a temporary licence for some occasion, such as a garden party. There are limits on how many temporary licences can be applied for and on the duration of the event being licenced.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: GUEST,The Barden of England at work
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 04:16 AM

Shambles quoted :-

"Committee chairman Coun Mike Goodman said the committee intended to grant the new hours but with conditions and restraints. He said these would include no live music beyond 11pm except on some Bank Holidays, no recorded music later than midnight, no indoor sports such as darts beyond 11pm, an exit notice asking customers to leave quietly, doors and windows to be closed by 11pm and a record of complaints and any action taken. There will be a 21 day period for any appeal to be lodged."

The Act plainly states that if the premises is licensed for 200 people or less and it has live unamplified music between the hours of 8am and midnight, any licensing authority imposed condition of the premises licence which relates to the provision of the music entertainment does not have effect.

So in this case, if the council grants a premises license which includes music entertainment, and the premises is licensed for 200 people or less, then the council CANNOT impose any conditions for live unamplified music between the hours of 8am and midnight - therefore in this case their condition of no live music beyond 11pm CANNOT apply to live unamplified music, including a jam session of course. The act is clear and uneqivocal on this.

Of course for amplified music in the same premises it is slightly different. Here regard has to be given to :
a) the prevention of crime and disorder,
(b) public safety.

Now, whether noise emminating from a premises can be regarded as a cause of public danger, or a cause of crime and disorder is something the licensing body may want to use, but I think a case can be put up that this is not so and could be used in an appeal.

The main point of all this is that if the premises is licensed for less than 200 people, and that license incudes the provision of music entertainment, and that entertainment is purely unamplified, and it's between 8am and midnight, then the licensing body cannot impose any conditions FULL STOP.

John Barden

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: GUEST,NIckp cookieless
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 04:43 PM

Interestingly the pub straight across the road from me (40 - 50 feet?) and fond of a Friday night band (some of them should be banned!) has applied to extend its hours by one but fortunately left the music hours the same (11:30 finish). But they've added music in the garden on Sundays from 3 to 6. Ho hum... but!! ... now they will have to switch off the jukebox repeater speakers in the garden that twitter all the time. Its a good trade!

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 05:13 AM

This morning - 29 August 2005 - there was a very intersting follow-up to BBC Radio 4's Today recent feature on the Government Minister's claims for live music under the new Licensing Act 2003 - made on this programme (and elsewhere). You can hear it on the following site - with the reference - 0718.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 08:58 AM

BBC R4 'Today' - Monday 29 August 2005 - 7.19-7.25am

Two-in-a-bar: new licence - more cost - less live music

EDWARD STOURTON: ... the time's 19 minutes past 7. The Conservatives are accusing the government of ignoring warnings from their own advisers about what the new Licensing Act will mean for small venues. Shadow culture secretary Theresa May has told this programme that the minsiter responsible, James Purnell, tried to pull the wool over everyone's eyes by repeatedly saying the new legislation would simplify the system and cost small venues less. But minutes released in the spring by the Live Music Forum, which advises the government, expressed concerns about the application process and lawyers' expenses. Nicola Stanbridge reports.

[jazz guitar plays]

NICOLA STANBRIDGE: The Gardeners' Arms in south London hasn't needed a public entertainment licence to put on up to two musicians, like this duo 'Monkfish', using what is known as the 'two in a bar rule'. But under the new Licensing Act it does. So, landlord Chris Compton filled in his forms by the August 6th deadline, he says costly and complex, and to no avail.

CHRIS COMPTON: There's a cost to admin etc etc. To put an advert in the paper which is in excess of three to four hundred pounds, take advice from lawyers, and have done to actually get the procedure working and then we had to take a lawyer then to the council.

NICOLA STANBRIDGE: So sub total how much have you spent?

CHRIS COMPTON: £2,500. We've got less now than we started with under the old licensing laws. We got turned down on the 12 o'clock extension, but we've always been able to have 'two in a bar' as regards music. We've now been refused that 'two in the bar' unless we put a sound limiter in which will cost us in excess of another £2,000 on top of the additional cost of licensing to have live music.

[music fades]

NICOLA STANBRIDGE: But the new Licensing Act has been consistently described by the minister responsible, James Purnell, as less costly and 'easier'.

JAMES PURNELL [recorded clip from Today 29 June 2005]: Lots of pubs who wanted to play music before if they went to their local authority were finding that they were having unreasonable conditions and they were being charged thousands of pounds. Now as long as they tick the box which says we want to put on an entertainment, they won't have to pay any more and it is a much much easier system.

NICOLA STANBRIDGE: Now Minutes from May this year, just released by the Live Music Forum, the government advisory group, reveal that the Department for Culture Media and Sport was warned that smaller venues were having problems getting their applications in.

VOICE READS: 'Agenda Item 5: Forum members were concerned about the low rates of applications received to date, as outlined in a report from the Local Government Association. Smaller venues were finding the application process complex and expensive. The Department for Culture Media and Sport recognised these concerned and were working hard to target the industry.

NICOLA STANBRIDGE: But the Conservatives' culture secretary Theresa May says the government ignored warnings.

THERESA MAY: These minutes are extremely important. We see James Purnell, the minister, consistently er saying to people that the process was easier, that it was cheaper, er, and that all it was was a matter of filling in a few boxes. I think it is very serious that the minister has given the public a completely misleading impression of this particular piece of law. It appears now from these minutes his department has known that it was much more complex than that. It was much more costly. Frankly he has been trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

NICOLA STANBRIDGE: The lawyer Piers Warne from leading licensing solicitors Joelson Wilson describes how the government has underestimated costs and complexities for smaller venues.

PIERS WARNE: Just even if they do it on their own, fees for drawing up plans have got to be somewhere around £400 to £800, and from what I've heard through the industry, advertising the application for a variation could be up to £600. And there's the additional costs of obtaining certification, possibly £2,000 if you are instructing solicitors. And that doesn't include obviously if you then have to go to a hearing, or actually deal with representations, so the costs could certainly spiral I see up to £5,000. And more, obviously, if we're having to appeal decisions that the committees are making. The fee reviews at the moment are actually going ahead and inevitably I think it means a rise in fees.

NICOLA STANBRIDGE: Tory culture secretary Theresa May backs this position.

THERESA MAY: Well I fear that there will be more complexities in the future and increasing costs. We already know that many people are finding that when they renew their licence each year it's going to cost them more than it has done in the past. The minister has ignored not only the Live Music Forum and the, er, the publicans and the industry generally, he's ignoring village halls up and down the country. Everybody who's been raising their voice against this has simply been brushed to one side in this rather patronising manner by the minister. And he uses this phrase constantly about 'box ticking' and how easy these forms are.

NICOLA STANBRIDGE: The Department for Culture Media and Sport were unable to put anyone forward to be interviewed on this subject. Instead in a statement they said:

VOICE READS: 'The minutes show that DCMS shared concerns about the low level of applications back in May when the meeting in question took place. A publicity campaign was launched to address the problem and we estimate that 82% of applications are now in. The minister has always acknowledged that the new licensing application process may seem daunting to some people. We estimate that overall the industry will save around £2billion over the next ten years as a result of the reforms.'

NICOLA STANBRIDGE: But for the Gardeners' Arms, landlord Chris Compton goes from paying £10 a year to just under £300 a year for his new licence. A process that's possibly brought about the end of live music in his pub.

[background jazz guitar]

CHRIS COMPTON: At this moment in time we'll trade on without the live music. But it will hamper our business. I think at the end of the day the licensing law just is an ass, and it hasn't taken into account the old traditions, i.e. the musicians. And what are they gonna do - 'two in a bar' - they're gonna be, they're gonna be crucified. I think that, er, the government generally didn't listen to us in the industry. The government did not listen to us at all.

[music ends]

JIM NAUGHTIE: Nicola Stanbridge at the Gardners' Arms in south west London. 25 past 7 and...

ENDS

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 12:03 PM

Funny how the Tories didn't give a shit about music when it was being debated. My MP couldn't even be arsed to reply to my letter about it.

Actually the problems the interviewee was experiencing were partly from the local authority "gold plating" the conditions for the licence. No mention of which party was concerned with that!

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 12:26 PM

Not music related, but a good example of this 'light touch' regulation in action. According to today's Guardian:

A kebab shop is hiring bouncers to keep the piece. Efes Kebab and Burger House in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, had to employ door staff after the council made this a condition of its extended opening hours.

(These days, of course, you can't just have your heaviest relative as a bouncer - they have to be registered ... by the council, I believe.)

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 02:15 PM

It has always been sad that this issue was divided on party lines and it has been one of the main reasons why improving it has been do difficult.

Of course the various Ministers has attempted to pull the wool over our eyes - instead of seriously addressing the problems - sadly the opposition would have done pretty much the same.

The incompentance of the DCMS is largely to blame - the issue was far too big and important for them to handle.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 06:20 PM

The following was published in the Dorset Echo 25 August 2005.
[e-mail]

Council has saved us from late night darts.

Protection from noisy darts at last!

I am sure the conditions placed upon the Licensing application reported in The Dorset Echo on Friday August 19 will be of great comfort to the two Portland residents whose objections and concerns about noisy late night exits from the pub concerned were detailed.

They will welcome the news that Weymouth and Portland's licensing committee has ensured in these conditions that these objectors will be saved from the serious dangers emanating from any form of indoor sports like darts or pool which will now have to finish at 11pm.

Perhaps being disturbed by late cries of 'One Hundred and Eighty' emanating from the pub will be a concern no longer?

I sure that they will also be pleased that these conditions ensure that any live music will cease at 11pm and that the committee has also ensured that it will only be recorded music that will be disturbing them up to 12pm.

For we all know recorded music to be a far less harmful form of music-making.

Despite the objections - the application for the extra drinking hours were granted as requested which should not come as a surprise as it was reported that there were no objections from the police, environmental health offices or Dorset Fire and Rescue Services.

These bodies did not object to the application as it stood. So it will be interesting to hear from our licensing committee on which of the four main objectives of the Licensing Act 2003 prompted them to set the conditions upon the difference between live and recorded music and when darts games must finish.

The Statutory Guidance to the new Licensing Act 2003 states that darts /pool etc may be classed as indoor sports and therefore Regulated Entertainment - but not (even when provided for profit) if they were for the private enjoyment of the participants and not for the entertainment of spectators.

As the reference in the Echo's report is to darts as 'indoor sports' - does this mean that our licensing committee will now consider all darts/pool in the borough to be Regulated Entertainment and illegal in any pub without specific permission under a Premises Licence? If so does it state this in the Local Licensing Policy?

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: ET
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 04:15 AM

The Minister now says that there will be an urgent review of this wretched act following concerns of just about everyone, except the Government, on the effect of extended drinking. I wonder if that review will extend to the dead hand of legislation on live music. Only if there is enough fuss I think.

On the Tories view of this, I am not sure, although my local MP David Davies has been supportive. It was the Lib Dem Piers however, that gave in on this, after being conned by the Government with its Morris Excemption. I remember the Lib Dems gave in at the last minute saying the government had done enough by removing the need for licensing acoustic music (not realising that this only applied to music backing Morris Dancing0   

There is a detailed critique of this act in the current edition of Criminal Law Review, seeting out the many vagaries and complications of this act, but it is heavy reading. I have sent copies to the Lawyers/Musicians Group.

This Act was supposed to be a peice of deregulation, not adding complexities and criminality as it has done.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 10:45 AM

This Act was supposed to be a peice of deregulation, not adding complexities and criminality as it has done.

Can we really expect to see the enforcement of conditions like ensuring the playing of darts stops at 11pm? And if we can't - what is the point of imposing such blatent sillyness?

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 06:42 PM

John, I thought I understood those provisions - at least both Robin Bynoe and I expressed incredulity at how unhelpful they were - but in th light of what you say I am going to need to re-read them when sober!

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 07:23 AM

I wish you luck, Richard. I came to the conclusion that one could only understand them WHEN drunk..........or mad.

I further concluded that the draftsmen were drunk, mad, or both.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Hopfolk
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 07:32 AM

This legislation only affects people who are being paid to perform/ticketed events doesn't it?

The law cannot control groups of people singing or playing their instruments for their OWN amusement in a private place (pub).

Sad thing is that the fear of prosecution will scare people off.

Cheers

John

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 07:45 AM

There seems to be some confused idea that they ARE their own audience, as far as I can follow what's happening, CamoJohn...

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 08:43 AM

This legislation only affects people who are being paid to perform/ticketed events doesn't it?
No.


The law cannot control groups of people singing or playing their instruments for their OWN amusement in a private place (pub).

I'm afraid it can, though as you say it is largely going to to be the landlords fearing for their livelihood that will have the most effect.

As to the sate of the law, I can put it no better than Gilbert and Sullivan did in the Mikado:




MIK:
I forget the punishment for compassing the death of the Heir Apparent.
KO., POOH, and PITTI:
Punishment. (They drop down on their knees again.) Something lingering, with boiling oil in it, I fancy.
MIK:
Yes. Something lingering, with boiling oil in it, I fancy. Something of that sort. I think boiling oil occurs in it, but I'm not sure. I know it's something humorous, but lingering, with either boiling oil or melted lead. Come, come, don't fret--I'm not a bit angry.
KO:
(in abject terror). If your Majesty will accept our assurance, we had no idea----
MIK:
Of course----
PITTI:
I knew nothing about it.
POOH:
I wasn't there.
MIK:
That's the pathetic part of it. Unfortunately, the fool of an Act says "compassing the death of the Heir Apparent." There's not a word about a mistake----
KO., PITTI., and POOH:
No!
MIK:
Or not knowing----
KO:
No!
MIK:
Or having no notion----
PITTI:
No!
MIK:
Or not being there----
POOH:
No!
MIK:
There should be, of course---
KO., PITTI., and POOH:
Yes!
MIK:
But there isn't.
KO., PITTI., and POOH:
Oh!
MIK:
That's the slovenly way in which these Acts are always drawn. However, cheer up, it'll be all right. I'll have it altered next session.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 08:49 AM

The main point of all this is that if the premises is licensed for less than 200 people, and that license incudes the provision of music entertainment, and that entertainment is purely unamplified, and it's between 8am and midnight, then the licensing body cannot impose any conditions FULL STOP.
John Barden

john - I think they can impose conditions and in my LA's case – they have. But there does remain is some doubt in this local example - on the size of the premises or if a capacity has been imposed.

But assuming an imposed limit of less than 200 in this case - I think The question is - if S177 suspends these conditions or if they have any 'effect'. This is not quite the same thing - as saying the LA is not able to impose any conditions because of S177.

b) are not being used for the provision of any other description of regulated entertainment,
any licensing authority imposed condition of the premises licence which relates to the provision of the music entertainment does not have effect, in relation to the provision of that entertainment, unless it falls within subsection (6).

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: GUEST,The Barden of England at work
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 11:01 AM

Roger - I see where you're coming from, and they can of course impose conditions. However, it is clearly the case that these conditions do not have 'effect' with regard to live acoustic music if, as section 177 subsection (4) states, the premises license is for 200 people or less and that license includes the provision of music, and if it's between the hours of 08:00 and 24:00.
John Barden

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 11:20 AM

Licensing chiefs have admitted that neighbouring pubs are being given different closing times under new laws coming into force in November.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4292810.stm

I have the past 5 years been trying to reach agreement with my local authority - Weymouth and Portland Borough Council in Dorset - to a change on what the local definition of the word 'performer' is.

The legal advice I have received is that although the word appears in S 182 of the Licensing Act 1964 - this current licensing legislation itself does not define this word. Also that as there is no case law that has legally determined what a 'performer' is. In the absence of this. - I am advised (via a ministerial answer given in the House of Lords) that the definition of this word is a matter for the Local Licensing authority to first decide and then - if this definition is legally challenged - a matter for the courts to finally decide.

With the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003 - which does not use the word 'performer'- I had thought that this issue of changing the local definition would now be only of academic interest. However, it has come to my notice locally that some Premises Licence applications are in effect imposing their own conditions by only asking for permission for live music with two or less 'performers'. I understand that many of these applications are being made by legal firms on behalf of licensees and owners.

I assume the idea in advising this course of action is in that by not asking for anything more than the premises already can have - there is less chance of the new application being objected to, turned-down or seen to be presenting any grounds for any conditions to be imposed. I am also accepting of course that if no request for live music was made in these application - that none at all would be permitted.

However, I regret that these premises feel they are now being forced to have to self limit the type of live music they could now legally hold. I especially question the wisdom of confining it to words that are not any part of the new legislation. With its much hyped and stated claims to encourage and benefit the type of live music that premises can now hold. For this self-limiting use of the word 'performer' - is now set to re-open all the old arguments about when a pub customer becomes a 'performer'.      

I find myself in the strange position of supporting a local application for the increased opening hours but having to object to this application because of the use and likely acceptance by my council - of these words. Their questionable legality and undesirable limitation to the live music that could now legally be available. This particular pub is small and this would already be a practical limitation. But room for a duo - would likely be enough for a trio - but with this self limiting wording - the addition of one more participant - would mean that the live music would be illegal.

The other issue which may conflict with this self limiting condition in application is S 177 of the new Act. In pubs where there is a safe capacity of less than 200 under a Premises Licence - any conditions placed upon any performance (by any number of participants) of non-amplified live music will be suspended.

Is there anything that a member of the public can do locally - as part of the application process - to prevent the limits of the old legislation being adopted into the new and the use and acceptance of these words again being part of licensing legislation.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 12:00 PM

DCMS press release 23 September 2005

http://tinyurl.com/ddlt2

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 01:50 PM

From the press release.

. The LGA's concerns which helped inform the new package of measures were:

The consultation period to be lengthened from a month to six weeks.
The introduction of more effective methods of consultation, such as a letter drop to affected residents
The presumption to support later opening to be removed from the guidance.
A clear and unambiguous role for elected members to represent their constituents.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 09:55 AM

Just to say I've been watching my local papers and so far resident objections to applications to vary existing licences (usually an extra hour or 2, only a couple of 24 hours)have been overruled by council and applications approved. I don't know how many have "ticked the box" for live music but none of the local music venues seem to be closing and some that didn't offer music are now offering occasional gigs, even jazz and blues ones. I hope other people find this is happening in their area as well. If it is, then our worst fears may have been groundless

RtS
(with fingers crossed)

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 10:14 AM

If it is, then our worst fears may have been groundless.

It is far too early to say much about our worst fears but the legislation was not sold to us as just keeping things as they were.

Licencees and the local officers have been rather too busy with just the Premises Licence side of things to be much concerned with live music.

Much of the improvement that you seem to see for live music - I suggest comes more from the uncertainty of this current transition period. For none of the new applications have yet to take effect and as before - so much will be down to local enforcement of music issues.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: ET
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 01:26 PM

I agree its to early to breath any sighs of relief - if you breath too hard you may need a licence.

Following the expulsion of the 82 year old from the Labour Party Conference there has been much verbage about control freaks and Kenneth Clarke on question time says if Blair is a control freak, you ain't seen nothing yet, when Brown becomes PM.

I wonder if the provisions about music are based around the need to control. Maybe. But Billy Bragg set up a musicians "set" to oppose Mrs Thatcher. I wonder if he and friends are happy with the current legislation?

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 09:27 AM

London company bosses reject new licensing rules
The Publican
Published 17th October 2005
Fewer than one in ten company directors in the capital expect the incoming licensing regime to benefit their businesses.

To a survey conducted by the London Chamber of Commerce concerning the likely impact of the government's new licensing laws, half the 165 respondents said they expected no benefit, while 42 per cent said the legislation would actively harm their operations' prospects.

Three quarters of executives said they felt the relaxed regime would lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour, while nearly two thirds believe attacks on business properties will rise in number.
Eighty five per cent said they felt the changes would pile pressure on police resources.

Businesses throughout London and the south east "did not buy into the argument that the new regime will lead to a more relaxed drinking culture," the LCC said.

LCC president Michael Cassidy said the new laws were a "leap in the dark" and were bound to have unintended consequences.
"The government must think it can correct any excesses by police action or later modifications to the rules. Business opinion, judging by our survey, is very sceptical," he added.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: ET
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 03:49 AM

Seems to me the only body that wants this is the Government, via DCMS and Ministers.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 07:42 AM

We should of course support all existing pub sessions by all means but let us look at the rather confused legal position for starting-up of any new ones under the new legislation.

Firstly - any licensee without entertainment permission would be unlikely to agree to hold a session and a local authority would be most unlikely to consider it as legal.

Even though there is some mileage in considering it as 'a performance of incidental live music' and exempt from the licensing requirement - it is rather unlikely to happen in the first place for this to be tested via the courts.

But even in a pub with entertainment permission - when some pubs only ask for permission for live music for two 'performers' - this would specifically make a session etc with more than two participants illegal.

S 177 of the Licensing Act 2003 means that if a pub has entertainment permission and a safe capacity of less than 200 - any non-amplified music with unlimited participants - (as long as there were not more than 200 of them) - will be free of imposed conditions - except for those based on two of the four main objects of the Act - protecting children from harm and the prevention of crime and disorder.

Effectively that means that although permission is required for non-amplified music - no real condition can be placed upon it. Which does rather question why permission for it should be required in the first place?

It is a bit unclear if all premises with a Premises Licence and a safe capacity of less than 200 - have to specifically request permission for this non-amplified music.

It is also unclear if any conditions like at what time entertainment must end - would be legal if applied by a LA to non-amplified live music in premises with a safe capacity of less than 200.

Unless moves are made to address the current uncertainty about the true legal status of non-amplified sessions etc - this will only get worse. This (and the increased workload) may extend the present 'honeymoon' period for existing sessions and keep them free from some local authority enforcement etc but will hardly encourage new ones to start.

I feel that a patchy situation where (some) Local Authorities concentrate initially on enforcement of the other aspects and turn a blind eye to (some) sessions etc but slowly wake-up to what the words of the Act actually say - will be as unsatisfactory for sessions etc - as this situation has been for them - in the last few years of the current legislation.

The rather silly situation is that if a non-alcohol serving cafe wished to provide non-amplified live music - they would have to apply for a Premises Licence in order to obtain entertainment permission - on which no real conditions could be placed. Considering what a complete waste of everyone's time this would be - the most likely outcome is that no non-amplified live music will take place in such premises. An outcome which is of benefit to no one.

If the words of the legislation can enable non-amplified sessions etc - without making them illegal without special permission -then we have to ensure that this can happen everywhere..

If the words of the legislation mean that sessions etc cannot be enabled and they are illegal without special permission - the words of the legislation will need to be changed.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: GUEST,The Barden of England at work
Date: 21 Oct 05 - 07:17 AM

Roger - I think you may be wrong in part on:-

S 177 of the Licensing Act 2003 means that if a pub has entertainment permission and a safe capacity of less than 200 - any non-amplified music with unlimited participants - (as long as there were not more than 200 of them) - will be free of imposed conditions - except for those based on two of the four main objects of the Act - protecting children from harm and the prevention of crime and disorder.

The point is that the Licensing Authority can impose conditions, but

Subsection (4) applies where-

(a) a premises licence authorises the provision of music entertainment, and
(b) the premises have a permitted capacity of not more than 200 persons.
      (4) At any time between the hours of 8 a.m. and midnight when the premises-

(a) are being used for the provision of music entertainment which consists of-
(i) the performance of unamplified, live music, or
(ii) facilities for enabling persons to take part in entertainment within sub-paragraph (i), but
(b) are not being used for the provision of any other description of regulated entertainment,
any licensing authority imposed condition of the premises licence which relates to the provision of the music entertainment does not have effect, in relation to the provision of that entertainment, unless it falls within subsection (6).

therefore the 2 provisions 1)protecting children from harm and 2) the prevention of crime and disorder, will not have effect.

Strange, but true I feel.

John Barden

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Oct 05 - 08:00 AM

John I note from your post that I am certainly wrong in not pointing out that S177 only protects non-amplified live music from conditions - up to midnight. Though quite why it is OK to drink long after midnight but not to make non-amplified music is less than clear.

You may be right about the conditions but these things will only be made clearer if or when they are taken to the courts. I fear that is unlikely that many of the things pertaining to live music in general and in particular to this form of live music - will ever reach the courts.

It could very well be that if and when we could get licensees to take the risk - that enforcement would be unlikely. But this situation is not satifactory for anyone.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: GUEST,The Barden of England at work
Date: 21 Oct 05 - 08:57 AM

Roger - I'm in complete agreement with you there as I believe the enforcers will be as ignorant of the law as they have been previously. Suffice to say that I will be carrying a copy of the relevant part of the act to 'fight my end' if any one of them tries to act in an illegal manner, and if they do the will find my complaints to their employers vociferous.
The Act will be with us soon, and I believe we all have a duty to ensure that petty officialdom will not get away with trying to impose the licensing authority conditions that the Act clearly states do not apply.

John Barden

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Oct 05 - 07:35 PM

It's a horrifying thought that, in the future, every folkie setting out for a gig might be heard checking that he has all his equipment:-

"Right, guitar, mandolin, capos, tuner, spare strings,..........now where did I put that bloody lawyer?

Don T.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 06:55 AM

Potential bidders for Premier League broadcasting rights have said they will pull out of talks unless the League's plans for its next auction - due to be presented to the EU tomorrow (Monday) - gives them a way to break Sky's hold on pubs and clubs.

Pubs and clubs pay around £200m a year to Sky to show live football, while Sky has around five million subscribers who pay between £28 and £42.50 a month to watch its sports channels. - Mail On Sunday

Interesting that you now will need licencing permission and have to pay to ensure that one singer/musician (or indeed to play pool or darts) is safe - but not to show live TV football in pubs to often drunken crowds.

With premises already paying those sums of money to Sky - and presumably TV licenses to our Government - it is no wonder they do not wish to pay for entertainment permission to ensure the safety of the showing of TV sport.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 08:13 AM

The willingness of the lawyer to be tucked in a hip or breast pocket will probably vary according to whose hip or breast pocket it is, Don, so Liza Carthy may do better out of that scenario than you.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 11:28 AM

You may well be right Richard. Mind you don't wind up with Lily Savage tho'.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 04:53 PM

The following was broadcast om West Country live 17 October 2001. The law has now been changed. Will the Local Authority still insist "3 people playing in a pub is a safety hazard"?


Intro

Three people playing in a pub counts as a performance and needs a special licence. But the same pub can attract lots of people with a big screen TV and not need a special licence.The law was drawn up hundreds of years ago and many musicians say its time it was changed

THREE'S A CROWD
Mary Hardiman-Jones
It's a welcome part of the pub scene all over England and Ireland. An informal session with a couple of musicians playing while others enjoy a pint or a pasty. Fine – But if a third or forth musician joins in, you are in a different ballgame.

Peter Gilmour. Weymouth and Portland Borough Council.

If there are more than two people gathered to have a performance in terms of music, then they are required to have a Public Entertainment Licence.
Now the legislation is hundreds of years old. I've no doubt like most of the legislation in this country, it is well past its sell-bye date. In terms of that it requires a review. But that is the legislation we have to operate under.

Mary Hardiman-Jones
And that applies to other public places, even those without a liquor licence.

Roger Gall. Musician
If three members of the public, on a regular basis sang 'God Save The Queen', they would be classed as performers and would be illegal in premises without a Public Entertainment Licence. If members of the W.I. were to sing 'Jerusalem', it would be exactly the same.

Mary Hardiman-Jones
That licence could cost anything from £200 to £4,000. The 'two in the bar' rule has been challenged all over the country but musicians at this Portland pub have campaigned more widely than most

Roger Gall
When I made this public on the internet, because we can do this now, I managed to get quite a lot of people, I think about 25, that the council counted. Mainly from the USA, who wrote in and said that they were not going to come to where a Local Authority had this oppressive view to their traditional activities.

Peter Gilmour
We have had a number of emails to us from people in America. And I have to say that when I explained to them just how active we are in supporting the arts in Weymouth, when I tell them about the folk festival we are having and the Millennium festival where we'd 40.000 people on the beach. They turn round and say, well done Weymouth, we will actually think about coming to have a look at Weymouth when they get here.

Mary Hardiman-Jones
Until the law is changed, the Local Authority will insist 3 people playing in a pub is a safety hazard.

Brian Flynn. Licensee of the Cove House Inn.
Last year, last December we started with local musicians, who came basically to do a jam session on Thursday nights. Just to entertain themselves basically. When we advertised that, I received a visit from the council, saying that this was actually classed as a musical event, even though there was no money involved. Just doing what they wanted, when they wanted. I was just given a warning and had another visit about a month later saying, get a Public Entertainment Licence, stop the activity or be prosecuted.

Mary Hardiman-Jones
That could mean a £20,000 fine or six months in prison. So this landlord applied for a licence in June and is still waiting.

Brian Flynn. Licensee of the Cove House Inn.
This is a public house, it has to be safe otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to operate. The police, fire brigade, council health people and the environmental health officer, they all visit. They all inspect and obviously if the place wasn't safe they would close it

Peter Gilmour
If an incident did occur an accident and somebody was injured or hurt or killed whatever, you'd be the first people to say to me, you are responsible for enforcing that legislation, why didn't you do it?

Mary Hardiman-Jones

Even a bishop in the House of Lords recently questioned this law and the government, in a White Paper did promise to review it. That would mean reforming the whole of licensing legislation. In the meantime, council's will have to uphold the law and musicians will be discouraged from playing. Unless of course it's solo or a duet.


Live studio interview with Julian Howe. Branch Secretary of Torbay Musicians' Union.
Q ….Have you already been campaigning about this 'two in a bar rule'?

A…..Oh very much so, on a National level especially with other people helping us. We are making a break-though as the last few years we have been able to get to the seat of Government, speak to people and explain the dificulties the existing legislation causes us.

Q…..How important do you think it is to have live music in a pub, for the community and even for the culture?

A…..Not just pubs, the hotels and almost anywhere. It is harmful what is happening now. Only 5% of licensed premises have Public Entertainment Licenses. I really does restrict our ability to perform, not to mention to earn a few bob. A recent Home Office circular did explain how they felt the importance of public entertainment was to a central role in tourism.

Q…..What about Karoke, do you need a licence for that?

A….Yes you do. Strictly speaking, according to the law you should have one for a juke box in a café, but they seem to turn a blind eye to that one. Fortunately some people have had to apply for a licence for one (karoke), and this has enabled bands to go in as well, so there is a little bit of benefit from that.

Q…..Are all councils as strict at enforcing these laws?

A…..There are extremes. For 25 years I worked in a public utility and I know how inconsistent people can be. We have an etreme in Bristol where, not just one person can play but if they play with a backing track, these count as a performer. That is about as crazy as one can get. There are some inconsistencies, I think this is where we are getting through and getting some action at government level. The most inconsistent element is the cost of the licence.

Ends.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: ET
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 01:53 PM

Some pubs (locally in East Yorks) have become concerned that just selling ale is not as profitable as it once was and are (where they have a licence that allows it) actively courting "sessions". A nice change.

Locally following a football match on big screen in a pub a fight broke out and one man had his nose bitten off!.   But no licensing problem here according to HM Government.

I think there is as little logic in the controls on live music as there is in the "deregulation" of hours, when binge drinking and violence is rising. But Ministers seem adamant.

Many have laboured long and hard against these unnecessary regulations, to no effect and I think we are now stuck with this Act and the commencement date in November.

I note that James Parnell was formerly a "special advisor" before becoming an MP and Minister with licensing responsibility.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 02:07 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

Most bars and restaurants should by now have been granted new premises licences which will come into force on 24 November. However, there is no clear picture of the impact on live music and it looks increasingly as though it may never be possible to make a really accurate assessment.

Some licensing law firms report that the majority of the applications they have processed have been successful in getting authorisations to allow bands, although some of these venues will still be subject to restrictions on the number of gigs a year. On the other hand, Punch Taverns, which operates nearly 7,000 pubs in England and Wales, has simply renewed the 'two in a bar rule' for the bulk of their premises. It is likely that some independently-run pubs will have done the same.

One bar in Hampstead, La Brocca, has dropped its long-running jazz duo gigs as a result of the new regime. Bar owner David Locke applied to have live bands and to open later. The venue had had a few noise complaints in the past, and according to Mr Locke the local authority strongly hinted that if he wanted to be successful in getting permission to open later it might be a good idea to abandon the live music application. He took the advice, and was successful in his application for later opening.

But even where bars have been granted permission to host bands, this does not mean they will provide them. In many cases, the licence will be granted on condition that if they do have live music, they must fit double glazing, hire door supervisers, fit more doors, a noise limiter, and so on. The bar owner will agree in principle, and be granted his or her licence. They are only required to implement the conditions IF they have live music. So, the existence of a live music authorisation on the local authority licensing register will not necessarily mean that live music is being provided.

No doubt the government will make use of this in the weeks to come, claiming this or that percentage of new live music venues have been created by their reforms.

What of the MORI live music survey, touted by the government as the benchmark study? In August DCMS finally conceded that the survey does not reveal the proportion of 'two in a bar' gigs by venue category. So it will be impossible to tell, using this yardstick, whether the situation improves or worsens for live bands in pubs.

You will recall BBC reports earlier this year showing that many smaller businesses found the new licence application process costly and complex. In many cases, the paperwork ran to well over 20 pages, not including new 1:100 scale plans of the premises, all of which had to be copied to 8 different authorities. Licensing minister James Purnell was criticised for claiming that the process was much easier and cheaper.

On 20 October, DCMS announced that Purnell had launched 'a bureaucracy-busting task force' for the culture, media and sport industries at the 4th annual European Tourism Forum in Malta. The press release continued: 'In his speech to fellow EU ministers and representatives from the EU tourism industry, James Purnell said that burdensome regulation is an EU-wide problem – and the UK is taking steps to address it. The move follows Government and industry concern that smaller businesses must not be stifled by red tape and unnecessary regulations.'
Purnell said: "Smaller businesses are the heart of the tourism industry and I want to make sure that anyone thinking of setting up a new business isn't overwhelmed by regulation."

Read the full press release at:

http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/press_notices/archive_2005/dcms140_05.htm?month=October&properties=archive%5F2005%2C%2Fglobal%2Fpress%5Fnotices%2F%2C

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 05:35 PM

Dorset Echo Tuesday 8 November 2005
RED TAPE MAY SCUPPER CHARITY RECORD BREAKER
By Martin Lea
[e-mail]

Organisers of a charity concert which aimed to establish a new world record may pull the plug on the gig, blaming council bureaucracy.

Five-piece Weymouth pub band Methane 57 aimed to perform the same song in 30 different venues on Children in Need day on Friday, November 18. But a letter from Weymouth and Portland Borough Council has thrown a spanner in the works.

Licensing manager Sue Moore read a Dorset Echo article about the fundraiser and wrote to remind the band they can only perform in bars which have a public entertainment licence. Venues which haven't can only host two musicians under the current rules and Mrs Moore suggested the band slim down to a two-piece if they want to play at these premises.

The letter came as a shock to event organiser and Methane 57 guitarist Pete Smith, who says the direction is unnecessary and has created an embarrassing situation for the band. The concerts, in which the band would perform rocker Bryan Adams' classic anthem Summer of '69' 30 times over 10 hours, take place less than a week before the licensing laws change and the public entertainment licence disappears.

Mr Smith, who is landlord of the Park Hotel in Weymouth, argues the band would only play for three-and-a-half minutes at each venue and the sole aim would be to raise money for charity. He said; Sue Moore has enclosed a list of the places we are allowed to play. With respect to those venues most of them will be empty or closed during the day or are so far out of town that it's not worth going. "We need to be hitting places in the town centre where the punters are going to be. "This is about supporting Children in Need and at the same time raising the profile of the town. "We've got lots of support and I've got 25 people ready to take the day off but I'm thinking of cancelling now. "I would have hoped the council would enter into the spirit of the event rather than going by the letter of the law".

Ms Moore was not available for comment.

I have just heard today that November 18 is also the day set for my meeting with the officers to discuss the local enforcement of the Licensing Act 2003. I had hoped that some of the officer's old way of thinking could be placed behind us.........................

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Mr Happy
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 07:44 PM

guess we'll all be in the same boat pretty soon!


What's to be done???

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 04:43 AM

You can respond to the Echo's story on the following....

http://www.thisisweymouth.co.uk/dorset/weymouth/news/WEYMOUTH_NEWS_NEWS3.html

Please feel free to do so.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 05:14 AM

Tried to send comment, and the message was rejected, with a flippant reply giving contacts to report to, with a final sentence "If you are a spammer trying to abuse this script, please report yourself to the local police".

Very bloody helpful!

Don T.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 04:40 PM

[e-mail]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following from Hamish Birchall.

The BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme should include a piece tomorrow about the 1.7 million live gig estimate as cited by former licensing minister Richard Caborn in support of his claim that live music was 'flourishing' in 'bars, clubs and restaurants' whose main business was not live music. The claim was made by Caborn in the DCMS press release of 25 August 2004 announcing the findings of the MORI live music survey.

The Stage newspaper is also making this front page news (the paper will be available in most areas tomorrow, although I have already seen an early London edition).

The reason for the sudden press interest is that the Market Research Society (MRS), the UK market research watchdog, has upheld a complaint I made back in January this year that Caborn's statement was misleading. This was his opening quote from the original DCMS press release:

"From the Beatles to Blur we have a live music heritage to be proud of. This survey shows that heritage is alive and well with a flourishing music scene - an estimated 1.7 million gigs were staged in the past year alone in bars, clubs and restaurants whose main business isn't putting on live music."

The MRS has agreed, as I had argued, that the 1.7 million estimate for the venue categories cited by Caborn was misleading and should have been much lower. This is because the estimate was for the whole survey, not just the sub-set of venues suggested by Caborn. MRS say the live gig estimate for Caborn's 'bars, clubs and restaurants' should be about 1.3 million. However, this is only true if you allow the word 'clubs' to cover two separate and quite distinct venue categories: 'small clubs', and 'members clubs and associations'. The latter are mostly closed to the general public and in any case are exempt from entertainment licensing for live music (until 24 November). Unsurprisingly live music has fared much better in these venues. If you only include 'small clubs', as I did, then my original estimate of about 850,000 live gigs remains valid for 'pubs', 'small clubs' and 'restaurants'.

As a result of their investigation, MRS has imposed a disciplinary action on a MORI employee, requiring the individual concerned to ensure that corrections are made to the press release. In particular, they state that a 'footnote should have been added to the press release along the lines that more than a third of the live staged events were not in the categories displayed on the press release'.

But DCMS has gone about this in a rather strange and disturbing way. It has emerged that some time after 16 February this year, a new bullet point listing venue categories was added to the original press release on the DCMS website and alterations were made to the minister's original quote. There is no indication that any corrections or alterations have been made, or why. The document is presented as if it were the original of 25 August 2004: A new phrase, 'and other venues', has been inserted into Caborn's original quote:http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/press_notices/archive_2004/dcms110_04.htm?month=August&properties=archive%5F2004%2C%2Fglobal%2Fpress%5Fnotices%2Farchive%5F2004%2F%2C


"From the Beatles to Blur we have a live music heritage to be proud of. This survey shows that heritage is alive and well with a flourishing music scene – an estimated 1.7 million gigs were staged in the past year alone in bars, clubs, restaurants and other venues whose main business isn't putting on live music."

It looks as though history has been quietly rewritten. I believe this raises serious questions about the relationship between DCMS and MORI, not to mention the morality of retrospectively doctoring minister's statements, and wider questions about whether this has been done to other press releases or minister's statements subsequently found to be wrong or misleading. All this is likely to lead to questions being asked in Parliament.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 04:47 PM

The event planned for 18 November that Roger posted about comes under the old legislation. After 24 November they can run it under a Temporary Event Notice.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 05:48 PM

If I hadn't been born when I was - I could well have been born at some other time. But the stubbon fact remains that I was born at that time and the stubbon fact also is that the Chldren in Need night IS set for 18 November.

It would be interesting to establish just how you set about obtaining a TEN for 30 different venues and who would presumambly pay 30 times for the privilege. Just to enable a band to perform a 3 and a half minute song for charity.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: PennyBlack
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 08:08 PM

Shambles - TENs pain in the ar...

Only 5 allowed per year for individual/group/associate

Only 12 per year per location

As yet one of our local councils hasn't taken out any Licences for open areas (Village Sq etc) that have regular entertainment, and they haven't said they will do either. They have also told the local Morris team that uses some small amplifiers - but all the same amplifiers that they will need a licence so will have to apply for TENs each time they dance in the square, as will buskers and other music makers how soon will the 12 TENs be used up ( we estimate next years allocation will have gone by the end of January!)

If you haven't seen the application requirement look Here

and a copy of the draft (but expected) application form, as a PDF file: TEN PDF

only £21 just don't stray from the location!

PB

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:20 AM

The radio 4 Today feature is now set for Friday 11 November but you can read the story in The Stage

http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/10371/dcms-issued-misleading-st

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: sian, west wales
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 10:49 AM

I haven't read through all this to check if this has already been said but ... Fergal Sharkey is going to be interviewed by Steve Heap next Sunday morning at the AFO Conference in Telford. Ought to be interesting.

siân