Minister say's jamming OK in UK

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:13 PM

Roger, in light of the fact that a musician playing for a Morris side becomes illegal if he continues to play when the dancers take a break, perhaps our knowledgable minister would like to explain the situation pertaining when your moving lorry gets stuck in a traffic jam, and is forced to stop.

We can always ask him but the answer is pretty simple Don.

The Morris side always keep a lorry with its engine running out side the pub - ready for the musicians to jump on and drive around the block - while the Morris dancers take a break.

And the musicians on the moving lorry always make sure that they have altenative acoustic instruments and a Morris side - ready to dance - when the lorry is forced to stop.

Not too sure if amplified music for Morris - played from a moving vehicle is exempt - it certainly does not sound very safe - but safety does not seem to matter..............

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: RichardP
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:20 PM

Richard,

Before we get carried away with thiw latest fantasy, could you explain the difference in law between stopped and parked to Don and others.

Hamish,

Of course I could not think that the situation that you describe is in any wy reasonable. On the other hand I cannot conceive of anyone ever considering it reasonable. The central conundrum is how the organiser of the event is defined. The various exclusions were clearly intended to safeguard the musicians if they turned up, played and received their fee for doing so. I don't think that you have established that the act has failed in that intent, but accept that there might be some doubt until it is tested in the courts. Whether or no the law finale produced achieved that level of protection, the intent of all members of both houses in debate was that it should be that protective and the ministerial advice given fomally with the benefit of parliamentary draftsmen rather than ad hoc on radio was that it was sufficiently protective.

I fear that the case you quoted to your local authority read to me as if there was an opportunity for a section of the public to attend so that although it was in a hospital the gig could properly be interpreted as being regulated entertainment in which case the Local Authorities answer was to be expected.

If the outside attendees can be categorised as attendees whose qualification is not as members of the public per se - relatives of residents would and friends of residents probably should qualify - then it would be potentially exempt (which was your implication). If you posed this more restricted concert to the Local Authority you would possibly get their answer to the situation which you appeared to be seeking to investigate. It might be the same answer. If it is it would also possibly be the wrong answer in law - but it would clarify where the local licencing officers (who are the real potential villains in all this) stand.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 07:41 PM

Having thought about the difference between parking and stopping, I can think of some clear examples of each, but not a litmus test difference. Indeed surely parking is inherently temporary. What is "permanent parking" - does it involve an unconditional intent to abandon? How long is "permanent", in this context?

Bearing in mind S 34 CDPA, I'm not sure I want to get into the effect that relationship between inmates and visitors has on well-wishing performances either.

I think your second paragraph is aimed at me rather than at Hamish. I do not accept your thesis. Rather, I think the intention of the government was to make the minimum amendments to escape without too much loss of political capital. Perhaps you can refer me to any extracts of Hansard to support your view.

I regret to say that I think the villains are threefold. First there are the draftsmen and those instructing them, who did not bother to find out much about music in the real world before indulging their prejudices. Then there are the civil servants who set about defending themselves rather than getting to the bottom of potential problems. Thirdly there are the politicians and civil servants who regard amending a bill after it has been published, even in the light of rational fears, as a sign of weakness to be resisted by the application of yah-boo politics - and who rely on briefings rather than the words of the Bill/Act to discover its meaning.

Local politicians are not the villians yet. We shall have to wait and see about them, although I fear the worst.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: ET
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 03:28 AM

Excellent questions for Purnell at MU conference this Wednesday. Would be interested in his replies (or evasions). Bit like an interview with Ronald Regan with Rowan Atkinson as the US Civil Servant behind him suppling the answers.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: RichardP
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 04:36 AM

Richard,

Starting with your last point. Of course the local politicians are not the villains yet under this Act. However, I cannot help feeling that a large part of the controversy around this act arises from the local politicians record on the previous acts particualrly PEL. In many LAs the licensing was typified by extortionate fees and onerous conditions and the same people are expected by many to be equally officious under the new act.

As to the rest of the email. Ministers are very resistant to amendments, particularly in the commons where both sides concentrate on name-calling rather than constructive attempts to explore detail and produce an improved compromise. I see no benefit in spending a lot of time going over parliamentary processes of two years ago. However let me quote one example that did happen, which is the clause referring to Morris Dancing. It is oddly worded and may or may not have the exact effect that anyone wanted but it is an amendment which was accepted by all sides of the argument. What I cannot recall, and again see no benefit in investigating, is whether after the first adoption it was rewritten by the draftsmen and replaced as an uncontested further amendment but almost all amendments that do not originate with the draftsmen are.

The Lords is very different. Hardly any amendments are pressed to a vote indeed most are stated at the start to be "probing" amendments seeking verbal clarification from the minister and never intended to be voted. At the next stage the government often propose an amendment which makes improvements in that area, which is carried without debate. The other feature of the Lords handling of amendments which is surprising, is that they are often proposed purely to elicit a verbal clarification from the minister, which is then regarded by all sides as having sttled the issue. There is a caveat to that, in so far as I noticed it on a subsequent Education Bill in particular where the actual implementation is more easily subject to Government oversite than is licensing so it may not have occurred on the Licensing Act.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 04:55 AM

Thank you Richard P. I largely agree. In this case you suggested that there had been ministerial statements that clarified. I think I did read most of the Hansards at the time and found (generally) no such, so I would still be interested to know the sources to which you refer.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 04:58 AM

Ver very long post - sorry about this, but no convenient website to put it on to make a link to.

The Performer Lawyer Group has just made the following press release: -


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

PRESS RELEASE 26/07/05:        THE CRIMINALISATION OF LIVE MUSIC
The Performer - Lawyer Group are lawyers who themselves perform: mostly music or drama. The group was formed in 2003 by solicitor and folk musician Richard McD. Bridge to lobby about the irrational terms of the Licensing Bill.

LICENSING ACT HOSTILE TO LIVE MUSIC
The Licensing Act 2003 is a major piece of legislation. It will regulate "licensable activities" from November 2005. It is largely about alcohol, pubs, clubs and drinking hours, which are controversial enough. Its over-sweeping approach is unhelpful to amateur dramatics, circuses and possibly even darts matches. But for musicians its impact on live music is an unprincipled disaster. It makes crimes out of many things that were not. It does so without regard to the cultural importance of live music and performance. The government deviously says nothing is regulated now that was not regulated before. In reality, music-making is now regulated in much wider circumstances.

Until now a public entertainment licence ("PEL") was usually needed if an entertainment was public. Some private events needed licences under the Private Places of Entertainment Act 1967. Now a licence will be needed in members clubs and at many more private events. Many more outside events will need licences. Hundreds of musicians earn their livings playing in pubs under an exemption for up to two musicians, called the "two-in-a-bar-rule". This rule exempted pubs from PELs if they had up to two live musicians, or recorded music. They will lose the benefit of that exemption for live music – but not for recorded music (see below). The government says this is necessary in case the White Stripes (a very popular American two-piece group) play at an English pub. How likely is that? Did Chicory Tip ever cause pub riots?

IRRATIONALITY
The Government gives two main reasons – safety, and public order (including noise nuisance). Neither stands up, there is no coherent rationale, and the Act is peppered with flaws. In 2003 the Association of Chief Police Officers told ministers: "Live music always acts as a magnet in whatever community it is being played. It brings people from outside that community and having no connection locally behave in a way that is inappropriate and disorderly." This betrays prejudice as well as bad grammar.

There is a welter of legislation covering safety and noise, so the new controls add nothing significant. Ironically, for this very reason, local authorities are now told in government guidance that the licences they issue must not duplicate other regulation. There are existing powers both to "stop now" and to confiscate equipment. Most capriciously, however, the Act regulates live music, but exempts broadcasts of any kind. So too in most pubs recorded music will escape (see below), even if all three are amplified on the same systems.

The Act regulates a string quartet in the local library at an open night, a jazz band at a village fete, pub sessions playing folk music, a singalong at a pub piano, a carol concert in a shopping centre, and even (according to some licensing authorities) some benevolent performances at old folks' homes or in hospitals. Is this rational? The Act also covers commercial dance halls and rap or death metal concerts, etc. Are these really the same?

BIAS AGAINST LIVE MUSIC
The Act treats recorded music and broadcasts especially favourably. The replay of anything lawfully broadcast is not regulated (Schedule 1 paragraph 8). Pubs that could play recorded music under the "two-in-a-bar-rule" will still (under the transitional provisions) be entitled to a licence to replay recorded music. Recorded music under that rule is an "existing licensable activity" as defined in paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 8. These are usually called "grandfathered rights". If a grandfathered right is specified in a licence application under paragraph 2(4)(a) of the Schedule, then it MUST be included in the licence that MUST be granted under Paragraph 4(2) unless the police show it would make crime likely ((Paragraph 3(3)). Then these things will be permitted, no matter how loud, no matter how unruly the audience is likely to be.

Coming back to the "White Stripes", live music under the "two-in-a-bar-rule" is specifically excluded from being a grandfathered right by paragraph 1(2)(a) of Schedule 8 – but not recorded music, no matter who plays it, whether that DJ is as famous as the White Stripes or not.

The error here is two-fold. As any frequenter of music can tell you, there is less trouble where music is the priority rather than alcohol and romance. Further, the creative is discriminated against in favour of the consumption of manufactured output. The two-faced government advances the "White Stripes" argument against live performers in pubs – but ignores the equivalent possibilities, indeed probabilities, for recorded music. Some local authorities claim DJ "performers" will need licences, too, but for the reasons above this seems unlikely in most pubs, and the government has shown no intention anywhere in the Act to regulate DJs as performers.

REGULATION BY FEAR
The Act requires the owner of premises (indoor or out, including village halls, scout huts, etc) or the organiser to get a licence from the local authority for an event, even a charitable event if a charge is made. If there is no permanent licence he may give a "temporary event notice" for the event, limited to 12 per year (of course subject to a fee). Some fees have increased enormously.

Absence of a necessary licence is an offence. There are some exemptions for mere performers, but they are a mess, almost certainly as far as licensable private events are concerned, and probably therefore licensable public or club events. If one member of a band or troupe arranges or choreographs the performance of another, the first commits an offence but the second not. A conductor may be liable but the band not. If one member of a band lends another an instrument, he commits an offence but the borrower not. Extraordinarily, these things can turn an otherwise unlicensable private event into a licensable one. The penalty under the Act for music without a licence is £20,000 and/or 6 months imprisonment. So, seeing the complicated provisions in the Act, no one will take a risk and for example musicians playing at hospitals or old folks' homes are being cancelled because of fear of needing a licence (whether one is actually needed or not).

IRRATIONAL EXEMPTION STRUCTURE
There are some exemptions – as well as those mentioned above – and some obviously needed are missing. The exemptions are ill thought out. Below are some examples.

"Incidental" music (live or recorded) is exempt if incidental to some other licensed activity. The Government refused to define "incidental". Ministers have said that if an event is advertised, or if anyone is paying much attention to it, it cannot be incidental, but this is not based on any words in the Act.

Morris dancing with acoustic music is exempt. This was a sop to get Lib Dem peers on-side in the Parliamentary debate. When the dancing stops and it therefore gets quieter and safer the acoustic music must stop unless licensed!

There is no other recognition of the importance of our culture or folklore – which must make England almost unique among the countries of the world, and arguably is contrary to our obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) that we ratified in 1976.

There is no general exemption for unamplified music. The government says this is necessary in case a troupe of bagpipers or Japanese drummers decide to play in a pub. How likely is that? Is it more or less likely than loud recorded music, or broadcasts?

There is no general exemption for "spontaneous" music. The government has repeatedly said that such music is not regulated. They say that "jamming" is not regulated. They have never pointed to any words in the Act to justify such a statement. The statements are probably wrong.

Places of public worship and religious meetings are exempt but not church halls. Church and village halls may benefit from reduced or zero fees if they get (if they can get) a licence.

There is a distinct possibility that rehearsal rooms may in some circumstances need licences. It turns on detailed wording that ought to have been clarified and was not.

CONCLUSION
The Government keeps saying that it supports live music and the Licensing Minister says the Act will make more opportunities for live music. The truth is that the universal requirement of a licence to make music (except in limited circumstances in private), backed with swingeing penalties for anyone who makes premises or facilities available for music, will kill the roots of live music and stifle the creativity of musicians young and old. Meanwhile, we all hear disaffected youth complain "there is nothing to do". Where will the music industry find real musicians (as distinct from clones made in a televised factory) when there is nowhere for performers to hone their skills?

This is now an Act. The Minister says the Government will review the legislation if it does not do what is intended. The Act contains power for the minister to amend many parts of it without a full and time-consuming parliamentary process. Urgent pressure is needed. That review and amendment could and should take place now to save live music from extermination.





BELOW: a selection of recent public ministerial statements, with the reasons they are wrong.


James Purnell: BBC Radio 4 - You & Yours – Friday 1st July 2005

Purnell: 'It's, you know, it is a seven page form for most people.'
FALSE because: The vast majority of pubs, bars, restaurants and hotels do not hold a public entertainment licence. So applying for live music now or in the future will mean filling out at least 15 pages of application forms –even for solo or duo performances, plus plans etc – see below.


James Purnell/John Humphrys: BBC Radio 4 - Today – Wed 29 June 2005:

Purnell: '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.'
FALSE because: A typical bar or restaurant will pay considerably more if they 'tick the box' for live music, and the application process is more complex than the old licensing regime. Ticking the box immediately incurs the cost of publicly advertising the application, often over £200. There is also the cost of having new 1:100 scale plans made of the premises. Then there are potential knock-on costs of possible legal representation if there are local objections, or objections from 'relevant authorities' that have to be dealt with by a public hearing. There are more potential costs incurred if typical local authority conditions are imposed, such as installing CCTV, crush rails, double glazing, air conditioning, new lavatories or wiring, or providing registered bouncers. If the applicant considers such conditions unreasonable, there is the cost of appealing to the magistrates' courts. But he may never get that far – a live music application will fail if the local authority doesn't get round to processing it within two months. Under the old regime there was no such 'time out' limit. Plans were not required if merely renewing an entertainment licence, and the scale was at the applicant's discretion. Nor were applicants required in advance to set out a weekly performance timetable, citing whether the music is amplified or not. For bars and restaurants a completed entertainment licence application was not usually more than 4 sides of A4. Under the new regime it is more likely to run to 15 pages or more. Under the old regime it went to 6 different authorities, not 8 as under the new regime. So it is much easier not to 'tick the box' for live music, particularly since jukeboxes automatically carry forward, if they are already in situ, and big screen broadcast entertainment is exempt.

John Humphrys: Forever? I mean they tick the box and that's it?
James Purnell: That's exactly right. They never have to apply for a licence again.
FALSE because: It is not "exactly right". It is not even close in most cases. Live music applicants must set out on the form the days and times during day when performances are being proposed. Many licensees will be wary of applying for live music 24/7. Local residents and the local authority would almost certainly object. Most applicants will compromise, applying for live music on a few days a week, perhaps just continuing the solo/duo acts they were automatically allowed in the past. Assuming such an application is eventually authorised, it will be a criminal offence for the licensee to put on live music on days and times not specified on the original application (except possibly under a temporary licence). If they had applied to continue solo or duo acts only, they would not be free to put on bands of three or more performers. In order to change or increase the live music, a new 'variation' application would have to be made, plus the licence fee, advertising costs, and potential for all the knock-on costs set out above.


James Purnell: BBC Radio 4 - YOU & YOURS – Friday 01 July 2005

James Purnell: '…but you know just generally it makes it easier for people to put on live music…'
FALSE because: As above:

James Purnell: '…And in effect people transferring the licences that they had previously into the new Act and that does mean, er, filling in a form and providing some information. Er, you know, the light at the end of that tunnel is that they can then know that they'll never have to apply for a licence again….'
FALSE because: As above:

James Purnell: '…Well, the general point is, yes we do recognise that there is a burden, and people getting their applications in at this stage. But once they've done so they will then never have to apply for a licence again.'
FALSE because: As above:

James Purnell: 'And under the current regime there are all sorts of anomalies and all sorts of antiquated rules which do mean that, day to day, people facing restrictions.' – [the implication is that these will be removed]
FALSE because: The new Act creates even more anomalies: one musician performing in a restaurant not licensed for live music is potentially a criminal offence for the licensee, but music or sport broadcast on big screens and a powerful PA is exempt; a concert in a church, royal palace, or military base is exempt, but illegal unless licensed in a school; acoustic music with Morris or similar dancing is exempt, but without the dancers illegal unless licensed; a performance in an unlicensed village hall is illegal, but legal if the musicians performed on the back of a moving lorry. Two famous musicians need regulation but one famous DJ does not (probably).

James Purnell: 'But if they do go out and get a licence we feel that it will be easier for them to operate because they will be able to put on whatever events they want to after that and they will never have to reapply for that licence.'
FALSE because: As above:


Jeremy Vine/James Purnell: - BBC Radio 2 – Tuesday 19 July 2005

James Purnell: 'If you're applying for an alcohol licence in effect you only have to tick one extra box and, er, you can then get a public entertainment licence.'
FALSE because: As above:

James Purnell: 'So, actually most people only have to fill in the 7 pages.'
FALSE because: As above. For most people it will be 15 pages, scale plans, fees, advertising costs, and capital costs and running costs, etc.

James Purnell: 'The the principle I think is fairly clear which is if it's an entertainment, where you're advertising it, people are coming along, paying, expecting to see live music that will require a licence as it does now. '
FALSE because: If live performance is 'to any extent' public it is illegal unless licensed irrespective of whether people pay to attend, whether it is advertised, and irrespective of whether alcohol is sold. If it was "as it does now" then the Act would effect no changes about live music. Certain venues are exempt from entertainment licensing: places of public religious worship, royal palaces, military bases and defined areas within designated ports or airports. The new Act also for the first time captures many private events that used to be exempt, such as charity fund-raising performances, or live music at private members clubs.

James Purnell: 'If it's just people singing along or jamming then it's not, then it doesn't require a licence.'
FALSE because: There is no such exemption. There is no exemption for spontaneity. Schedule 1 paragraph 2(1) is perfectly clear. A performance of live music, if there is an audience (or spectators), and if the purposes include (ie to any extent) entertaining that audience then that is entertainment and so regulated like other entertainment.

James Purnell: '… it's perhaps not surprising that people are worried about the burden they're going through now. What I would say is that the light at the end of that tunnel is they will have, they will never have to apply for it again.'
FALSE because: - See above

James Purnell: 'We think it will be good for live music'                        WHY?

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: ET
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 07:59 AM

I have sent this to BBC Look North, a local commercial radio station and local press in East Yorks. Could I suggest all with a vested interest copy this to your local media?

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:15 AM

If anyone wants copies with layout etc, I will happily email them, if they PM me with their email addresses. Or email me using my email address in the release.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 12:12 PM

These are the words of the Act (as regards the 'incidental exemption).

Schedule 1
PROVISION OF REGULATED ENTERTAINMENT
Part 2
EXEMPTIONS

7 The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music or the playing of recorded music is not to regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purpose of this Act to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity which is not itself-

(a) a description of entertainment falling within paragraph 2, or
(b) the provision of entertainment facilities.

This is the guidance.

The Statutory Guidance

Incidental music

5.18

The incidental performance of live music and incidental playing of recorded music may not be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment activities under the 2003 Act in certain circumstances. This is where they are incidental another activity which is itself not entertainment or the provision of entertainment facilities. This exemption does not extend to the provision of other forms of regulated entertainment. Whether or not music of this kind is "incidental" to other activities is expected to be judged on a case by case basis and there is no definition in the 2003 Act. It will ultimately be for the courts to decide whether music is "incidental" in the individual circumstances of any case. In the first instance, the operator of the premises concerned must decide whether or not he needs a premises licence.

One factor that is expected to be relevant is "volume". Common sense dictates that live or recorded music played at volumes which predominate over other activities at a venue could rarely be regarded as incidental to those activities. So, for example, a jukebox played in a public house at moderate levels would normally be regarded as incidental to the other activities there, but one played at high volume would not benefit from this exemption.

Stand-up comedy is not regulated entertainment and musical accompaniment incidental to the main performance would not make it a licensable activity. But there are likely to be some circumstances which occupy a greyer area. In case of doubt, operators should seek the advice of the licensing authority. particularly with regard to their policy on enforcement.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: MMario
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 12:17 PM

so - If I am reading this correctly - If I were to be in a pub and started singing - as long as people pretty much ignored me it would be "incidental" - but if I should have the luck to have people notice my singing and fall silent in order to listen - if would cease to be "incidental" and become "entertainment".

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: JennyO
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 12:27 PM

But not if you have some Morris Dancers with you, or if you are on the back of a moving truck, MMario :-)

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: MMario
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 12:36 PM



hmmm - does the act specify "palace" or "residence" - and does it specify *WHICH* Royals? King Khandu might be able to pick up a few bucks declaring certain pubs as Royal Palaces...

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 12:45 PM

Stand-up comedy is not regulated entertainment and musical accompaniment incidental to the main performance would not make it a licensable activity. But there are likely to be some circumstances which occupy a greyer area. In case of doubt, operators should seek the advice of the licensing authority. particularly with regard to their policy on enforcement.

This is good one and follows good sound principles.

Billy Conolly's banjo would not require entertainment permission as part of his stand-up act. It could be amplified and still be exempt as incidental.

A non-amplified banjo player - not doing stand-up - would be illegal.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: ET
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 02:23 AM

As oft repeated this is Act is a mess. I passed copies of the press release to members of a session last night. They found it hard to believe that the Government could be at all concerned with this trash at a time of terrorism etc - or indeed at any time.

I just think it illustrates a blinkered attitude by musicians to the dangers of legislation of this type - any many, unlike me, make a living from music, in part at least.

One scenario that caused hilarity was this - each year the Lord Mayor of the City I live near has a charity day and has a procession.   In that procession are lorries containing bands, often Afro steel drum bands etc.   Whilst the procession is moving - no licence - but when it stops at traffic lights, no longer a moving vehicle? It would be a brave enforcement officer who lept out and issued proceedings against the organiser - the mayor of his council!

Perhaps those on the back of moving lorries should be Morris Dancers - but they would all fall over when the vehicle stopped at the lights. Would this then become non licenseable comedy?

Am not seeking a serious legal response but just illustrating the nonesense of all this.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:49 AM

Stand up comedy is not covered

Everyone says my singing and washboard playing are a joke, so am I covered?

RtS

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 06:37 AM

Folk in sessions could go through the sham of learning to tell the occasional joke - for their music to be considered as stand-up and exempt as incidental live music or learn to Morris dance - for their music to be considered under that exemption.

However, I hope that such silliness will not be necessary. The Act does not charge our local authorities to prevent music and now they will have no monetary reason to insist on entertainment permission and any insistence on this - will only involve them in more work.

We can work locally to try and ensure that common sense will prevail and that if the incidental exemption covers anything - it surely can be seen and openly declared in the first instance to cover non- amplified sessions involving a pub's customers?

I fear that if this is not first made clear - there will be little chance in expecting a licensee (without entertainment permission) to take the chance. They would probably be advised to apply anyway - but as (after this first round of applications) a change will now involve them in more licensing costs (as a start).

However, that a certain night is a customers pool night (even according to the guidance - when provided with a view for profit) will not alone - turn this into a sporting event - like a championship competition to entertain an audience - that would become licensable under the Act. So any advertising designating a customers session night should be seen in the same light.

If music and sport are to be seen to be treated equally by our local autorities - incidental live music - should be treated by them - the same as pub games.

Guidance

5.15 Pub games.

Games commonly played in pubs and social and youth clubs like pool, darts, table tennis and billards may fall within the definition of indoor sports in Schedule 2, but normally they would not be played for the entertainment od spectators but for the private enjoyment of the participants. As such, they would not normally constitute the provision of public entertainment, and the facilites provided (even if a pub provides them with a view to profit) do not fall within the limited list of entertainment facilities in that Schedule (see paragraph 5.11 above). It is only when such games take place in the presence of an audience and are provided to, at least in part, entertain that audience, for example, a darts championship competition, that the activity would become licensable.   

The point surely must be recognised that under current legislation - a licensee would not think to first ask the local authority if they could hold, designate and advertise a customers darts night and no local authority would object - if they did.

Many things have changed under the new Act - we must ensure that the traditional thinking of our licensing officers changes with it too........For I can't really see a local authority insisting that a conventional customers darts night is now licensable. We must try an ensure that that they are consistent and do not insist that any session night (of incidental live music) made by customers is licensable.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 08:58 AM

There is no doubt. If the purposes include entertaining an audience, the entertainment is caught, see Sch 1 para 2(2).

There are two arguments that might defeat this. The first is "de minimis non curat lex" and as is well known (bad taste comparison follows) it does not defeat a charge or rape so why should it defeat one of providing regulated entertainment without a licence?

The second I am not yet publicising 'cos I think it might work so I don't want our guns spiked before time.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 10:37 AM

There is no doubt. If the purposes include entertaining an audience, the entertainment is caught, see Sch 1 para 2(2).

This may prove to be true but there must still be considerable doubt about how many of these seemingly contradictory aspects will be finally decided and argued in court - if and these aspects ever get to court.

But without being tested or having any court rulings to guide them - all parties - and in particular - Local Authorities must first try to make some practical sense of what the legislation's dafters and Parliament have provided - without being bogged down with details that have no real bearing on the Acts main objectives.

The Act does not (intentionally) charge Local Authorities with preventing live music and pub games.

Richard - I hope that you would agree that darts etc 'normally would not be played for the entertainment of spectators but for the private enjoyment of the participants'? Are you serious suggesting that any Local Authority will NOW consider that because some other customers may be (incidently) entertained by this - they will insist on all such games being considered as licensable?

Are you saying that there is no doubt that Local Authorities will be in breach of the legislation - if they do not insist on preventing 'incidental' live music in sessions etc and these pub games - without entertainment permission (on the grounds that someone other than the particpants may be entertained)?

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: PennyBlack
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 02:02 PM

So, for example, a jukebox played in a public house at moderate levels would normally be regarded as incidental to the other activities there, but one played at high volume would not benefit from this exemption

Surely if a "Punter" puts money in the jukebox, it must be entertainment for a profit, it might also incite dancing, and will of course attract the requirement of a PPL.

PB

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: ET
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 05:07 PM

I have read in one councils policy that "indiental music-for example background music to fashion show" is exempt?

I remain concerned that few pubs have applied for a conversion of their existing licence. In the City I live near 30% have applied. In the hinterland 56% and with less than a week to go.   How does that irritating song go "Its gonna be a dry, dry Christmas without.....(a licence)"

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: RichardP
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 05:30 PM

It hasn't recently been said but the guidance on incidental is pretty unhelpfully written.

Surely what it is trying to say is on the lines:

If you, a member of Joe Public, go to a pub where there is no session, you drink and maybe indulge in other activities typical to a pub. If one night there is a session or some other entertainment and it prevents you from indulging in your normal activities in the pub, whether because it is so loud that you can't hear yourself talk or in some other way, then it is not exempt. If you can indulge in all the activities you normally do then it is exempt (even if you prefer to listen to the music instead of doing what you normally do). However if you stop drinking the pub is unlikely to have sessions very often - because whatever you do in a pub the most important thing to the landlord is buying his booze.

What I have written is easy to understand but it is not the language of the law.

It is not often appreciated that the statutory guidance is just as much law as the act itself. It has equal weight in the legal process because it has been published as a statuory instrument, which is the most common method of making law these days. Acts of Parliament almost invaraiably just lay down the context in which statutory instruments fill in the detail. SIs can even reverse the law as passed in the original Act of Parliament.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 05:52 PM

THe Act governs the Guidance, and the last time I had an argument about its status I think I had to concede it was technically not an SI, but I can't remember why not.

Sham, that's exactly what the Act says. One person watching - regulated. THe only way out is for the LA to turn a blind eye, adn you must be the world's expert onteh practical likeliood of that (BG), or for a court to bend the words.

Dancing of course wil lneed a licence, but as the government kept saying technically it won't be a PEL becuase it will be one of thenew licences under the new act.

Also, thanks to Rumgumption, the press release is now on a web page

http://www.rumgumption.com/plg/

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 07:14 PM

Sham, that's exactly what the Act says. One person watching - regulated.

Richard - I doubt it not.

What I asked is do you seriously think that LAs will now consider conventional pub games as Regulated Entertainment because one other person is watching (and may be entertained) and prevent them without entertainment permission? Or be in breach of the legislation - if they do not?

If they do this to sessions etc - perhaps we should all insist that our local authorities are consistent in this approach and apply the same rationale that will also prevent pub games. Ot try to. There may be few session participants - there are a awful lot of darts and pool players - who will I am sure - be overjoyed at this prospect.   

have you asked your LA if this is their intent

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 07:43 PM

I have heard of pubs pulling out of darts leagues for this reason.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Mr Red
Date: 28 Jul 05 - 10:42 AM

Morris dancing or similar was a trick to pull in any folk display dancing. The act also covers dancing on top of May Hill on May 1st, or not according to the script ammendment. Significantly music had to be acoustic to prevent "disco dancing" being argued as Morris.

SO bloody frightened of the football vote are the government that nobody dared include the biggest threat to public disorder, big screen football matches in pubs. Ask the police what they advised the gov.

AND there is a lot of singing at those events. The law is an ass, a very timid ASS.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Jul 05 - 11:36 AM

I have heard of pubs pulling out of darts leagues for this reason.

This may be so - it would be good to have some details. But if LAs are not going to insist on enforcing this - they may be pulling out for no good reason.   

I have seen applications for Regulated Entertainment locally that specify time etc. Are licencees expecting to have to limit the playing of darts etc by their customers in these premises to these times and are the LAs going to enforce this and claim they would be in breach of the legislation if they did not?

I have yet to see an Premises Licence application that specifies permission for pub games.

The Licensing Act 2003 does not (intentionally) charge Weymouth and Portland Borough Council or any other local authority with preventing live music in these premises without entertainment permission....It also does not charge them with the prevention of conventional pub games in these premises...The Act certainly does not charge them with protecting customer's conventional pub games whilst preventing all live music made by customers in these premises.

If the local authorities consider that this is an unintentional charge being placed upon them - by the words of the Act - then they must urgently join in with any attempts to change the situation for live music.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Jul 05 - 02:40 PM

Sham, that's exactly what the Act says. One person watching - regulated.

Given the words of the Act - iIt will be fairly easy for LAs to declare all sorts of things as Regulated Entertainment - if they really wish to advise this. But if they do - we must make sure that it will be just there start of their problems. The LAs might then be the main party pushing (with us) for the words of the Act to be changed.

Sensibly the deciding factor whether live music sessions etc and pub games are indeed Regulated Entertainment is not that that any spectators present may be entertained or form an audience - if it does take place. But whether the activity could or would ever take place in the complete absence of any audience.....

If anything could or would still take place in the absence of any audience - it would be a very strange Regulated Entertainment for any licensee to stage.

The common sense bottom line I think is this. Regulated Entertainment is provided by the licensee for profit. In order for this conventional entertainment to be profitable – the licensee rather has to be sure that what they advertise as happening – does in fact happen. The requirements are that the act engaged turns-up on the night and at the right time to star, performs for a certain agreed time and finishes on time. Payment is usually made to ensure the act's commitment.

There can never be the required certainty and commitment for a session to be considered as a Regulated Entertainment and for the licensee to make the necessary investment to enable a session alone as Regulated Entertainment. Firstly there can be no guarantee that any customer will turn up on the night, or at what time or at what time they leave. If they do there is no obligation for them to play for any period. Or indeed no obligation for them to play at all at any time.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: ET
Date: 28 Jul 05 - 05:48 PM

Certainly under old PEL law I remember a furious argument with a jobsworth from a local authority arguing (and later winning by force) a debate that in a pub with 20 musicians and her, she was being entertained therefore a PEL was needed. Presuambly entertained ment something to her although no one would have thought so from her facial expression.

If the new law deals with regulated entertainment in the same way, then a local authority jobsworth could claim to be that entertained member of the public.

In darts matches there is usually a non participant, being entertained, if thats the meaning given to a a husband/wife, girl/boy friend dragged along to watch in sufference.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Jul 05 - 06:16 PM

Right

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Mr Happy
Date: 28 Jul 05 - 09:04 PM

so if someone stands up between songs & tells a joke, the sesh wil b exempt?

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: ET
Date: 29 Jul 05 - 03:54 AM

I know this is getting to be a big thread but the future of music, musicians and music shops may depend on this legislation and it matters.

I wonder if the Minister is thinking along these lines. In the guidance on the DCMS site is some stuff on re-enactment societies and whether or not they perform plays for an audience (regulated). It goes on to say however "If the re-enactment was staged purely for the enjoyment of those taking part and not for the purpose of entertaining an audience, no licence would be required".

What is the difference between a play and live music for this purpose?    If DCMS meant this and they issued a notice to the trade that "sessions" or "jamming" (defined) did not need a licence, jobs for musicians and music shops might be saved. Some hope?

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: GUEST,Hamish Birchall
Date: 29 Jul 05 - 04:20 AM

I am responding to Richard P's posting of 25 July about hitherto private and exempt hospital gigs now needing licenses, and the related issue of the potential culpability of bandleaders.

I am glad you do not think it reasonable that the hospital gigs I do should be licensable. You imply that if the local authority could interpret the Act such that relatives and friends who may attend do not count as the public, then perhaps such gigs could be exempt. That may or may not be possible. But in this context, that possibility is irrelevant. Even if friends or relatives were prevented from attending, and the event was as private as it is possible to be in a hospital, it would still be caught.

This is because I make a charge with a view to profit, and my charge is paid (mostly by the hospital) on behalf of at least some of those for whom the entertainment is provided. Look again at paras 1(4) and 1(5) of Schedule 1. I fall within these provisions because I am a person concerned in the organisation and management of the entertainment under 1(4)(a)(i), and my charge is for the provision of a service under 1(5).

As for the potential culpability of band organisers/managers who also perform, something about your tone and language still suggests that you feel musicians should be grateful that 'all members of both houses' offered them some protection if all they do is turn up and play. You forget, or deliberately ignore, that this 'concession' was forced out of the government. The Bill as published rendered ALL musicians open to possible criminal prosecution if they didn't check first that gig venue was appropriately licensed.

Why are you still an apologist for this stupid legislation?

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: GUEST,ET
Date: 29 Jul 05 - 05:41 AM

I think this legislation is more than stupid. I think it is pernicious. I have yet to understand its point. If it is, as Government says, the cornerstone of its law and order policy, it makes no sense to regulate live music, which causes no law and order issues, and not to regulate live screen football, that does. I have tried repeatedly to get some explanation from Ministers etc to no effect.

I think the only hope left is to get the big players in the music world to give these issues publicity. I know that when I talk to non musicians, who have no axe to grind, they react with disbelief to the controls this legislation imposes on music.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: RichardP
Date: 29 Jul 05 - 06:39 AM

Hamish,

Get into the real world. Noone forces a concession from a government with a majority of over 150 except in the last few days ofa parliamentary session - and then only if he ocmmnads a majority vote in the Lords. The most that you get are clarifications to the wording if you convince them that it doesn't mean what they intend.

The point of the post that you rpelied to was not to say that the act is good or bad or even better or worse than you state. It was simply to say that you posed a questsion to the local licencing officer which had to be answered in the way he did rather thant ask a queston that would throw light on how wide or narrow interpretation he would put on what is exempt.

All of your posts have taken a consistent narrow view of the discretion that licencing committees will have. You may be right but you may not no-one will know until at least the end of the year. You may be wrong and you are probably correct for some and worng for others, in which case we will only know how the situation will settle down when a significant court rules on a case. No-one expects to convince you otherwise until a court proves you worng if you are. In the meantime the MU appears to be less pessimistic than you.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: RichardP
Date: 29 Jul 05 - 06:44 AM

Richard,

You are correct that the guidance is not strictly an SI - since it has no SI number. It went through the exact procedure applicable to an SI subject to affirmative resolution and had a considerably longer debate in the Commons Standing Committee than most such SIs (but that was under two hours). The joint committee on statutory instruments also considered it and suggested two changes one of which was incorporated and the other was not prior to the two house committees considering it. The lords committee passed it without opposition. The

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: RichardP
Date: 29 Jul 05 - 06:53 AM

The previous post was transmitted somehow half way through typing!!

Richard,

You are correct that the guidance is not strictly an SI - since it has no SI number. It went through the exact procedure applicable to an SI subject to affirmative resolution and had a considerably longer debate in the Commons Standing Committee than most such SIs (but that was under two hours). The joint committee on statutory instruments also considered it and suggested two changes one of which was incorporated and the other was not prior to the two house committees considering it. The lords committee passed it without opposition. The Lib Dem and Conservative members voted against the draft in committee but were defeated by the Labour vote. The committee reports were both adopted without debate or dissent.

It's status is defined in section 4 of the Act as of equal weight as the Council's own licencing policy and slightly less than the licencing objectives of:

Prevention of Crime and Disorder,
Public Safety,
Prevention of Public Nuisance and
Protection of Children from Harm.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Jul 05 - 08:50 AM

Prevention of Crime and Disorder,
Public Safety,
Prevention of Public Nuisance and
Protection of Children from Harm.

On a general point: A musician reading the words of this Act and those of the Guidance to it and listening to various Government and their 'quango's' claims for how live music is to benefit - could be excused for thinking that the whole thing was designed to make life difficult for live music - and live music alone.

For where certain other aspects are caught by the words of the Act. Attempts are made to free them (but not live music presenting little or no concern to the Act's main objectives). Even, amazingly when live music forms part of these aspect.

I will refer for one example only to the 'incidental' exemption - which to all appearances is a exemption (or a concession) to stand-up comedy where ANY form of live muisic amplified at whatever volume will be exempt - if considered as 'incidental' to the non-licensable but still undeniable performance to an audience for the purposes of entertainming them - that is stand-up.

This is not to attack stand-up - but all of the concerns for a performance of live music must still apply to stand-up comedy. Perfomances of plays are caught by the Act - even with no live music. Even folk arts like mummers plays - with very little if any live music.

There is something that is not right when a stand-up performance can be totally free of licensing restrictions even when live music forms part of it - and the same music (even one non-amplified performer or customer will be subject to it.

This is added to when some stand-up performances are openly racist-sexist etc and now contain foul language as a matter of routine. It seem rather to sum-up our Government's confusion when performance of this is thought to be ensuring public expression (which it is) but when the Act prevents free public musical expression of our cultural traditions (with little or no justification).

If the thinking was as consitent in its aims - as I think all legislation MUST be - the inclusion of any live musical content in stand-up should - following the logic (such as it is) of this Act - be licensable. If this particular performance is to be saved - then let us ensure that all other perfectly safe live music - by changing the (catch-all) words of the Act - not by making it look even more silly, petty and unfair by the introduction of such clumsy exemptions or reassuring Ministerial statements - that have no legal weight.

Perhaps the way forward for those who are concered with the Act's affect on live music - who are really quite few - is not to keep asking for the affect of the words of the Act to be limited and point out where live music is caught by the wide wording? Perhaps the way forward is to insist that these words are followed to the letter and as a result ensure the resulting adverse practical but legal effect on many other groups - like pub games players etc?

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jul 05 - 09:00 AM

Act says "have regard" to guidance. You may it seems to me have regard to something yet reach a conclusion that differs.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Jul 05 - 09:08 AM

Or not have any real regard for it at all? *Smiles*

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Jul 05 - 09:56 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Apparently Purnell improvised his speech at the MU conference, Wednesday 27 July 2005. DCMS has so far not provided me with any further information.

According to one reliable source who was present there were no questions from the floor about two in a bar. The source reported, however, that there were questions about orchestral salaries.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: ET
Date: 29 Jul 05 - 02:33 PM

The local paper tonight for the area I live in has issued urgent guidance to applicants on how to btain entertainment inclusion in the liquor licence - saying how to apply, how to advertise, how much it costs (£220 plus VAT) and to do it NOW - ends Saturday week (effectively a week today).

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Jul 05 - 02:56 PM

The Time Is Now.

http://www.thepublican.com/news/time_to_act/index.html

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: ET
Date: 29 Jul 05 - 03:03 PM

This could not be more urgent and I urge all who play music in pubs to ask your licensee if he/she has applied for conversion and variation to include music.   There is only one week left. Failure will mean no music after 28th November and probably no beer either.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: ET
Date: 30 Jul 05 - 11:07 AM

I was concerned to note that at a pub in which Sessions are regularly held, an application was posted on the window for regulated entertainment "restricted to 2 entertainers". When asked the landlord said "its the Brewery. Don't worry, you can play in the back room in private". The back room is the only way to the toilets!

It shows ignorance of the Act by Brewery and publican. Why restrict yourself to the present regime?

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jul 05 - 04:38 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

'Live and kicking - why gig goers have never had it so good. By Alexis Petridis'. So ran the headline on the front of yesterday's Guardian pull-out 'Friday Review', 29 July 2005.

Live and kicking... where have we heard that phrase before? Oh yes, John Smith, General Secretary of the Musicians Union writing in the union's in-house magazine earlier this year. What was the basis for his claim? You've guessed it, the MORI live music survey estimate of 1.7 million live gigs a year; the figure also used by former licensing minister Richard Caborn to claim that live music was 'flourishing' in bars, clubs and restaurants whose main business is not live music.

In fact the 1.7 million was an estimate for all venues, over 25% of which were private members clubs, and church and community halls. The Department for Culture also later confirmed that they could not exclude the possibility that specialist music venues had been included in the survey. The survey's estimate for pubs, restaurants and hotels was about 850,000 live gigs, barely half the figure quoted by Caborn and Smith, and the majority of these places had no live music at all. Of those that had some live music, most had fewer than two gigs a month and of these most were probably 'two in a bar' not bands. The picture is further confused by the survey's definition of live music which, with the approval of the Live Music Forum, allowed live/recorded hybrids such as scratch DJs.

But this doesn't stop Petridis. Why should it - he's been talking to Feargal Sharkey. 'Last year, a MORI poll discovered the British public had a far larger appetite for seeing bands live than anyone had previously thought,' enthuses Petridis...'It found that a staggering 1.7m gigs had taken place in England and Wales in the preceding 12 months, and that 47% of pubs, clubs, student unions and restaurants had featured at least one live act in the previous year. The results of the poll even startled the man who had commissioned it: Feargal Sharkey, the former Undertones vocalist who now chairs the government's Live Music Forum. "It was quite astonishing, even for somebody who had been involved in the music industry for 25 years," he says. "I went back to MORI and said, 'Are you sure you've got this right?'".

What is 'staggering' and 'astonishing', surely, is that both Petridis or Sharkey should think it is great that 53% of all venues surveyed had no live music at all. Indeed, the survey found that only 19% of all venues had two or more gigs a month.

But, further on in his article, Petridis cites the survey again: 'As the MORI poll indicated, there are simply more places accommodating live music in Britain than before'. The survey indicates nothing of the kind. How could it, being the first survey of its kind as the DCMS so often points out. In fairness, Petridis does not rely solely on the MORI survey. He talks a lot to Steve Lamacq and a bit to Andrew Harrison of Word magazine. He also thinks the success of this year's Glastonbury, and Live 8, and the fact that a band called Magic Numbers can fill The Forum, are part of the revival of interest in live music.
I have copied the above to the Guardian.

For letters: [e-mail] (you must include a full name and address, a reference to the relevant article and a daytime phone number)
For complaints: [e-mail]
Guardian journalists' emails usually follow the house format, so this should reach the journalist direct: [e-mail]

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jul 05 - 05:25 AM

i>Why restrict yourself to the present regime?

A good question for the Government - (and Feargal Sharkey's Live Music Forum, and the Local Licensing Authority) who claim that the current situation (where less than two performers are exempt) distorts and resticts opportunities for live music and are supposed to have introduced this new legislation to address it.........

But at the same time made the application process in practice - so that a (self) restriction such as in this case and I fear many others, will make application and life easier - for all concerned except for those really concerned for live music.

Any subsequent variation will end-up costing more than an intial application in this form - which at least will enable the same situation as before. Without specifing this - even two performers would be illegal. I suspect this form of application would be advised by the LA as unlikely to result in any local objections and not be delayed by this.   

Do the words on the Act mean that any future darts pool etc matches on these premises - will be limited to 'two entertainers' only and that the LA will be in breach of the legislation if they ever permit any more?

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: ET
Date: 31 Jul 05 - 06:35 AM

The word "entertainers" appears on the window notice and in the advertisment. A darts match of only 2 would be pretty feeble and caselaw says that 2 means 2, not 2 + 2 +2 etc.

Good point. So a darts tournament of two sides of 4 (or whatever they have" would be illegal if the darts players are regarded as "entertainers". If they are not neither would sessions musicians I would have thought. As I say, ignorance by the Brewery and the Landlord. I have seen many other such notices just specifying "regulated entertainment as specified in the application". The advert and the window notice does not detail "what is in the application".   

Incidentally the pub with the "maximum 2 entertainers" is not in a residential area but near a run down wholesale fruit market.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Jim McLean
Date: 31 Jul 05 - 07:37 AM

Am I correct in assuming this new licensing act only applies to England and Wales and not the UK?

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jul 05 - 08:32 AM

Smiles*

Yes that - what you say is true – sorry if this thread title is confusing and incorrect. Please do not blame me.

A change was imposed to the thread's title without my knowledge or permission by some anonymous volunteer – in order to clarify it.

Un the UK          ? (thread title change complaint)