Minister say's jamming OK in UK

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:09 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

See below for a transcript of this morning's BBC R4 Today item about the 1.7 million gig claim for 'bars, clubs and restaurants' found to be misleading by the Market Research Standards Board (MRSB).

A few caveats first, however:

The BBC mistakenly called the MRSB a 'government body' in the opening commentary. The Market Research Society is in fact an independent professional body 'that exists to set and enforce the ethical standards to be observed by research practitioners'. See their website: http://www.mrs.org.uk/

MRSB only has power to discipline its members, who are individual market researchers, not companies or corporations.
A MORI employee was disciplined essentially because MORI has joint responsibility with DCMS for any press releases or publications including the live music survey findings, and the 1.7 million gig claim as it was originally made should not have been published without qualification.

The fact that DCMS later covertly altered the former licensing minister's quote in the 25 August 2004 press release is not made clear in this piece. The MRS confirmed to me yesterday that alteration of the minister's quote was NOT included in their disciplinary action. How it came to be done is now the subject of a further MRSB investigation, following another complaint from me, and is likely to be the subject of Parliamentary questions.

In November 2004 and January 2005, DCMS ministers were questioned in Parliament about the 1.7 million estimate relating to 'bars, clubs and restaurants'. No apologies were offered, despite the fact that in a letter to me dated 10 December 2004 DCMS Licensing Implementation and Communications Manager Jason De Bono wrote: 'I can confirm that the 1.7 million estimate was for the whole sample. The reference to "bars, clubs and restaurants" made by Richard Caborn was shorthand for this - there was of course no intention to mislead.'

I did bring other complaints about the validity of the survey, but the 1.7 million live gig claim was top of my list. The MRSB has not recommended disciplinary action in relation to my other complaints, but nor have they yet explained why they were not upheld.
Within an hour or two of the BBC Today programme, a web cast is usually available. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/
~ ~ ~

TRANSCRIPT OF BBC Today broadcast - Friday 11 November 2005 - 6.51-7.54am approx

DCMS 1.7 million live gig claim for bars, clubs and restaurants was misleading.


EDWARD STOURTON: The time now is 9 minutes to 7. The Market Research Standards Board, the government body which is charged with running checks on the accuracy of market research, has ruled that one of the government's own press releases was misleading. The release dealt with the impact of the new Licensing Act on live music in small venues, the subject of much grumbling among musicians. Nicola Stanbridge reports:

[background jazz fade in]

NICOLA STANBRIDGE: For ten years this little restaurant called La Brocca in Hampstead has had a reputation for live jazz music, acting as a springboard for young musicians. Under the old Licensing Act, two musicians could play without an entertainment licence. Under new rules the venue needs one. But the cost is prohibitive, and La Brocca is closing its doors to musicians, one of many examples this programme has heard of. Its owner is David Locke.

DAVID LOCKE: It's expensive to get a licence, and live music in bars and pubs and restaurants is not profitable. It's a philanthropic thing really to put jazz or folk music in a pub. You know, to have to go to a lot of cost to get a music licence, you know, to do various modifications - all sorts of stuff - just isn't viable and people won't do it because they can't afford to do it.

NICOLA STANBRIDGE: This is at odds with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport which has always insisted the new Licensing Act is an easy box-ticking way of getting a public entertainment licence, making it much easier to put on music. [jazz fades out] Last August the minister responsible, Richard Caborn, said there was a flourishing music scene: 'an estimated 1.7 million gigs were staged in the last year alone in bars, clubs and restaurants whose main business isn't putting on live music'. That was based on a MORI survey, but musicians disputed the scene was flourishing, insisting it was vulnerable and likely to worsen under the new Licensing Act. One musician, Hamish Birchall, decided to add the sums up for himself.

HAMISH BIRCHALL: It looked as if 1.7 million was rather high for bars, clubs and restaurants. I studied MORI survey's full report and it has a table showing seven different venue categories. You get a figure of about 1.7, 1.8 million for the WHOLE survey, not for a sub-set of three venue categories.

NICOLA STANBRIDGE: Hamish Birchall filed a complaint with the Market Research Standards Board which agreed the statement was indeed misleading. The 1.7 million related to the whole sample surveyed. The Board recommended a footnote be added and disciplinary action. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport did change the press release, broadening the 1.7 million number of gigs to include 'other venues'. In a statement they said this was not a fundamental change, or a change of meaning, and as such there was no need to issue a new press notice. They said they didn't set out to misinterpret the research or mislead the public. And MORI concurred, adding in a statement that the original press release did include an executive summary of the MORI research, and a breakdown of all the venues surveyed, and that other complaints by Mr Birchall were not upheld. The Liberal Democrat Culture spokesman Don Foster says it raises questions about future government statements.

DON FOSTER: The government having been rapped over the knuckles for misleading the public in a press release should at the same time be acknowledging that they made a mistake and should be apologising for doing it. We need to be much more vigilant in the future about what this government is saying, whether it's the Iraq dossier, burying bad news, or whether it's even about the state of live music in this country.

SARAH MONTAGUE: Nicola Stanbridge reporting. The time now 6 minutes to 7.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:15 PM

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

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:43 PM

Fergal Sharkey is NOT part of the solution. He is part of the PROBLEM.

A professional musician, in it for the money, is unlikely to be trying to benefit the largely amateur folk scene, and in any case his spouting the official government lies is counterproductive to the future of the live music venues destroyed by this inept legislation.

Anything he says is irreparably tainted with the political expediency of a government which cannot be seen to admit it got things wrong, no matter the cost to the culture and heritage of this country.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: ET
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 05:03 AM

Congratulations to Hamish on his continued battle on behalf of all musicians against this pernicious legislation. It is a pity that the big guns of the music world forget their roots in pubs and clubs since this is where the attack lies.

It is a feature of this Government that it will never admit that it has got anything wrong.   If it did and corrected things it would carry much more respect.   I find ministers and officials throw up a blanket wall against any objections to its plans - replying with the same old bland and irrelevant replies, calling in aid Government appointees like Fergal Sharkey.   I have spoken to hundreds about the governments regulation of live music and have had a 100% response on the lines of "why. Havn't they got better things to do". The architect of this mess, supposed Jazz lover and self confessed folk music hater, Kim Howells, has long since moved on to some obscured role in the Ministry of Transport leaving behind regulation upon regulation.

I remember in the commons debate, reference to "light touch" and Temporary event notices in the same sentence as Local Authorities. As I said and thought then, local authorities do not do "light touch" hence the restrictions and lengthy form filling for the simplest event. If you want to invite the public into your garden to raise money for charity, you could hire a fire eater, a stunt motor bike rider or Roy Chubby Brown to tell blue jokes without a licence, but hire a string quartet, or a solo singer and you need a Temporary Event Licence for £21 and a degree in form filling.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:31 AM

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, ET

Don T.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Tootler
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 01:53 PM

...but hire a string quartet, or a solo singer and you need a Temporary Event Licence for £21 and a degree in form filling

Turn your home into a private members club for the day :-)

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 06:39 PM

From November 24th private members clubs fall under the same licensing as all other venues, so that won't work.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:41 AM

The ironic thing about our jobsworths attempts to scupper a Children In Need fundraiser (detailed earlier) is that if instead of the band - Bryan Adams were to perform his own song solo at these 30 pubs - it would currently be perfectly legal.

After the law changes on the 24th of this month - it will not be.....

Bryan Adams is himself taking a big part in this years BBC Children in Need appeal and will be playing a concert in Wales. I wonder what he would make of this if he or the BBC organisers could be informed?

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: sian, west wales
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 12:31 PM

Well, I've been to Telford to hear Steve Heap quiz Mr Sharkey - SPECIFICALLY on the PEL Act as it applies to FESTIVALS. Here are a few point which stick in the mind/craw (without prejudice and purely as I understand them) (have I now absolved myself of any/all comeback?):

FS reports that many of the current problems are not the fault of the Act but of Licencing Officers/Departments which either do not understand the implementation guidelines or are trying to tag their own agendas on to the law. In the case of the former, he's having all the gang (Local Authority Licencing Officer), or as many as accept the invitation, to Westminster on, I believe, 28 November to a seminar on the subject. As far as the latter goes, any 'inflation' of the requirements, he says, should be reported to his office and they will pursue the matter.

He also felt that they have followed up a great many complaints to find that they are apocryphal and time-wasting. Urban myth territory. Make of it what you will.

He repeatedly came back to how cheap the licence is. I don't dispute this; I do know that it is the COMPLIANCE requirements which break the bank, particularly for small family businesses.

As it was a Festivals-oriented quiz, there was a lot of focus on Temporary Licences rather than the permanent ones, which is more where my interest lies, but some of the info seemed dubious to me. i.e. He claimed that if an event is held in a space (say a street or square) which is unlicenced (say, by the Council) you will be culpable, not the Council. I suspect that if they do nothing to move you on, they also are culpable but that's picking nits, I suppose.

A number of people were concerned that their free community festivals would disappear as they have no income, therefore no way to pay for licences (and complying with regulations). FS felt that streets/areas should be licenced by the Council and the organizers should negotiate free or nominal-fee use of them. He also suggested that you could take out one Temp Lic. on a street and adjoining specified buildings (i.e. pubs) for the duration of your festival. Something doesn't strike me as just right in that ...

Re: his 28 Nov seminar (and I AM going to check if any Welsh Authorities are going or have been invited), it was pointed out that the Licencing Officers never liase with the Arts/Activities/Community Officer within their own councils, and this latter group are as bummed out about this Act as we all are. "Right hand, I'd like you to meet Left hand."

Let me think - what else? Ummm....

Oh - yes. Closed with a particular mention of the 'email that has been doing the rounds'. Hamish's, I guess. He specifically pointed out that all is now well because the Press Release the DCMS sent out has now been 'corrected' and it wasn't a big deal anyway. And that the monitoring group hasn't upheld any of the other claims. So: that's alright then.

He also seems convinced that if DOCUMENTED proof of the Act being disadvantageous can be presented, the government will have a rethink.

Yeh. Sure.

Anyway, that's what I heard and am passing on to you. Please make allowances that perhaps this wee pea brain of mine didn't understand all the complexities that my Lords and Masters at Live Music Forum and the Labour Government are taking forward on my behalf ...

siân

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 04:29 AM

FS reports that many of the current problems are not the fault of the Act but of Licencing Officers/Departments which either do not understand the implementation guidelines or are trying to tag their own agendas on to the law. In the case of the former, he's having all the gang (Local Authority Licencing Officer), or as many as accept the invitation, to Westminster on, I believe, 28 November to a seminar on the subject.

Why does the thought of all the nation's licensing officers gatherered in one spot to tell the DCMS what they want - fill me with so much dread? Especially as this is taking place 4 days AFTER the Act's implementation.

Rather that the DCMS pandering to and risk creating a powerful and negative lobby group - I suggest it would be far better to invite their senior officers instead. They are the ones that have to find a sensible local balance.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 05:01 AM

http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=19127&d=32&h=24&f=23&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y

MPs to vote on Licensing Act today

Published 15th November 2005
The Publican

MPs are to vote on a motion in the House of Commons today to delay the start of the Licensing Act.
The motion put forward by the Tory Party aims to stop the implementation of the act on November 24.
Shadow culture secretary Theresa May said: "MPs have a duty to stop these dangerous plans which will fuel even more violence and anti-social behaviour on the streets of Britain."
This vote follows the House of Lords vote yesterday in which peers voted by a majority of 33 to delay the implementation of the new regime "to allow more time to address public concerns about the effects of the proposed changes".
Conservative peer Viscount Astor has tabled a motion to delay the Licensing Act until June 30, 2006, claiming the system is a "total mess".

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 05:11 AM

Pity they didn't notice it was a total mess when they had the opportunity to send it back for revision.

As for the licensing officers seminar, it sort of points up the government's attitude to live music. No mention of getting together people like the MU and EFDSS, to hear their POV.

Bloody typical!

Don T.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:14 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4437512.stm

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:37 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Yesterday the House of Lords voted to delay the implementation of the Licensing Act until 30 June 2006. The government was defeated by 33 votes. Today there will be a vote in the Commons. However, it is unlikely that there will be a sufficient number of Labour rebels to defeat the government. And even if the vote went against the government, its effect would not be binding - a consequence of procedural rules in this case.

See article in The Publican online:

http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=19127&d=32&h=24&f=23&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y

During the debate, Lord Colwyn spoke up for live music, highlighting the unfairness of the new Act in allowing pubs to keep sound systems, while filleting out the automatic entitlement to one or two live musicians.

Responding for the government, Lord Davies of Oldham said:

"In the transitional period there has not been a decrease in the number of venues providing live music. We do not think that the Act is bad for live music. We think that abolishing the "two in a bar" rule increases opportunities. As far as we can see in licence applications, there will be increased opportunities for live music in licensed premises."

Note the contrast between this statement and the government's earlier claims that the Act would lead to 'an explosion' in live music, and Purnell's hype this summer. Oldham's claim that in the transitional period 'there has not been a decrease in the number of venues providing live music' is disingenuous. There was no reason at that stage for any venue to stop live music - the new law doesn't come into force until 24 November, and new licences could not even be granted until two months after August 6th, the end of the transition period.

~ ~ ~

House of Lords - Monday 14 November 2005

Viscount Astor's motion to delay the Act's implementation: "That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the Licensing Act 2003 (Second Appointed Day) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/2091) and to replace it with an order specifying the second appointed day as 30 June 2006 in order to allow more time to address public concerns about the effects of the proposed changes and for arrangements for any required changes to be completed in an orderly manner."

Live music comment:

Lord Colwyn (Conservative): My Lords, I hope that the House will allow me 60 seconds to say something on behalf of musicians in this country. Every time that I intervened during the passage of the then Bill, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, chastised me for my continual interventions, and assured me that there was no problem at all and that it was all in my imagination. However, although the Act includes the "playing of recorded music" in the description of regulated entertainment, that is disapplied in the transition to the new regime for existing bars, pubs, restaurants, hotels and any premises that are already licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises.

Those places will be allowed automatically to keep jukeboxes or other systems for the playing of recorded sound, no matter how powerful the amplification. However, the automatic permission to have one or two live musicians in such venues-amplified or not-will cease. That was the live performer element of the so-called "two in a bar" rule, which since 1961 has been available in those premises as an exception from the general requirement to hold a public entertainment licence for live music.

The DCMS hoped that existing pubs, bars and restaurants would seek authorisation during the transitional period by varying their licence application to include live music, which could be done for one fee. However, that variation is not straightforward. It entails public advertisement at the applicant's expense, and a period for: public consultation; vetting by police, the fire authority, and on grounds of environmental health; planning; and ultimately the approval of the licensing committee of the local authority. If objections are received, whether from local residents or other agencies, a public hearing may be required with the potential for knock-on costs. The Government were warned that the then Bill would do nothing to promote live music. Musicians need venues to play and perform. The Act does nothing to help.

~ ~ ~

Responding for the government:

Lord Davies of Oldham (Labour):
... The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, raised the issue of live music - an issue on which he was most eloquent during the Bill's passage. Of course I respect his opinion on that. In the transitional period there has not been a decrease in the number of venues providing live music. We do not think that the Act is bad for live music. We think that abolishing the "two in a bar" rule increases opportunities. As far as we can see in licence applications, there will be increased opportunities for live music in licensed premises. However, as I move from the Scylla of the criticism of the noble Lord I land on the Charybdis of the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the question of noise. But of course we are concerned that the local community will be in a position to make its contribution to the issuing of licences to guarantee that local opinion is taken into account.

I recognise that what we have had this evening is a really rather jolly time in revisiting the Act. However, in the terms of the Motion, there is no intent to stop the second designated day of the Act, because to do so would throw the whole of our licensed premises and the selling of alcohol in this country and the control over selling of alcohol into complete chaos. On that basis, I hope that the House will reject the Motion.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:52 AM

A minor correction from Hamish.

Apparently if the Government lost the vote in the Commons tonight on whether to delay the Licensing Act the result may be binding after all. The government could try various tactics to try to delay the vote so that it runs out of time. If they lost, they would probably try to reinstate the 24 November implementation date.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Tootler
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 07:00 AM

The following was posted in another forum I belong to.

Funnily enough I've just talked to a couple of barristers who really
thought that it was unlikely that anyone would try to enforce any law
stopping sessions.

Hmmmm?

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 11:27 AM

The bottom line is pretty much the same as now. Any LA wishing to prevent any existing session etc by considering them to be public entertainment (and from 24 November to be Regulated Entertainment) must justify the grounds for their prevention of the participant's right of freedom of expression.

The main difficulty that faces us - is getting a session for the LA to take enforcement action against and to test the whole thing. That is trying to get any licensee to take the risk of holding a session without Premises Licence entertainment permission in the first place.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 11:49 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

In an attempt to discover why, how and when DCMS covertly altered former licensing minister Richard Caborn's original statement concerning the 1.7 million live gig claim, a written question has been put down in the Lords (an amendment will ensure that it is clear that the date of the press release was 25 August 2004). The government has to reply within two weeks:

ENDS

The Question.

The Lord RedesdaleTo ask Her Majestys Government what consultations they held with (a) Market and Opinion Research International, and (b) the Live Music Forum prior to the addition of an extra point under Notes to Editorsand the change to the quotation by the Minister of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport contained in the press release issued by the Department on 25th August, entitled Live Music SceneThe Verdict; who sanctioned those changes; and when they were made.    (HL2339)

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 07:03 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/11/18/dt1801.xml#head8

The following letter in today's Daily Telegraph

Pub pleasure banned

Sir - The 24-hour Licensing Act will bring to an end another of our innocent freedoms. I do not attend the live music entertainment by talented musicians once a week in the evening at our pub, but many local Suffolk people do.

This autocratic government has put a stop to this enjoyable pastime. A notice in the pub states: "This will be the last music night for the foreseeable future. The main problems are: doors and windows must be kept closed; there is to be a limit to the number of people in the pub; and counting people in and out is too onerous. As a customer would you be happy waiting outside because the number limit had been reached? We are sorry this situation has arisen with this new Act, but we must operate within the new conditions."

Many of our Suffolk country pubs have provided this entertainment by local musicians for many years. It is more than sad that it now has to end.

David Brook, Woodbridge, Suffolk

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: GUEST,The Barden of England at work
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 10:46 AM

Roger - how went it today at the meeting??

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 01:35 PM

Sadly the leader of the Council who is in full support was not able to attend. He had fallen off his motorbike and broken his shoulder.

As she was in agreement with this - I decided to go ahead with the meeting. She was not quite as bad as her boss Mr Grainger and her predecessor Mr Locke but it was hardly pushing at an open door. The point I was making is that as the Act required them to first consider some form of performance of live music as incidental and exempt - it might as well be something that was helpful to everyone.

[As the law is set to to come into force in week's time - you may have thought that they would have already been able to define what they considered locally as incidental live music.]

That as there were no court rulings - the Council may as well hold a liberal view under this legislation until any later ruling made this impossible. That it might be useful to consider where any local challenge may come from and that this would more likely to come if the Council were to take a narrow view - especially given some of the various Minister's statements and Number Ten's petition response.

I pointed out that it was one thing for the licensing section to stretch Regulated Entertainment to cover everything and his cat but another to follow this through and find the grounds to take enforcement action to prevent the public's right of freedom of expression. And I referred her to the MU's commissioned QC's opinion on this aspect that was lying unread and gathering dust in the council's files.   

She is going to read my written case and my suggestion for her to ask the licensing and cultural sections to provide her with similar written arguments and revert on the following 4 points and in particular on the specific circumstances of re-starting The New Star sessions under the new law - which the council claimed was prevented under the old legislation.


1.      Perhaps our Licensing Authority can be advised to formally hold and issue a policy that pub sessions are considered locally as incidental live music if or until there is any test in the nation's courts that may decide to the contrary and require a change?

2.      And that any Premises Licence condition that refers to 'performers' does not apply to any unpaid participant? Or preferably that any condition restricting the number or which refers to the word 'performers' is not accepted by this Licensing Authority?

3.      That any imposed condition stating the times that entertainment should cease should be confined only to cases where valid objections have been made to this entertainment and that otherwise these matters are best left to the experts in these matter the licensee?

4.      That a clear statement be issued as to the status of conventional pub games. That if they are not to be considered locally as Regulated Entertainment then no Premises Licence entertainment conditions are to be placed upon them especially when no specific objection has been made to them?

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 10:03 AM

One of the points made to me was that the council could do nothing about applications specifying entertainment by two or less performers.

I am sure they can't initially word the application but that does not mean that they have to accept the wording - or do they? If an application was made for permission for 'zottelling' would a LA have to equally just have accept this nonsense and undefined word without question?

What is the legal status of a condition with these words now? Who decides now what a 'performer' is, in the first place? When the words appeared in the legislation - it was the local Licensing Authority, even though it was never tested in cort. Now that these words do not appear in the legislation - who decides what a 'performer' is.

Placing these words in an application and accepting them as worded does seem to alone shoot-down the Government's claims about doing-away with the 'two-in-a-bar-rule' and all the so-called benefits of this move.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 05:36 AM

See also

Humphey Smith is a .........

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 02:39 PM

BBC2's Culture Show is doing a piece on the impact of licensing on a range of entertainments, including live music, 7pm this Thursday, 24 November 2005 (8pm in Scotland).

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 03:23 PM

http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=19173&d=32&h=24&f=23&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y> http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=19173&d=32&h=24&f=23&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y

Pubs with licences granted advised to operate without certificates
The Publican
Published 21st November 2005
Licensees who have had their premises licence granted but do not have their certificates are being advised to operate under the new licensing system.

The advice issued by the British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA) has been agreed with Commander Chris Allison from the Association of Chief Police Officers.
The advice comes less than a week before the new Licensing Act comes into force as only 20 per cent of licensees have received their licensing certificates.
The Act requires that the premises licence be displayed on the premises at all times.
The BBPA recommends that premises should display a notice to the effect that:
"A licence under the Licensing Act 2003 has been applied for and granted by xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx Council. The premises licence summary will be displayed as soon as it is received from the Council. The Premises Licence Holder is xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx The nominated Designated Premises Supervisor is Mr/Mrs xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx."

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Folkiedave
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 07:43 PM

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Folkiedave
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 07:46 PM

Sorry,pressed the wrong button after morris practice.

What the last (empty) message said was......

Interesting that the programme is being shown in Scotland 30 minutes later. The Scots must be p*ss*ng themselves laughing - the Act does not apply there.

Dave

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 04:35 AM

Yet - I fear that something rather similar is being planned for Scotland's licensing 'reform'.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Folkiedave
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 05:20 AM

I have a had a good search through the Internet stuff on Licensing (Scotland) and so far have found nothing that mentions regulated entertainment or similar.

For those not familiar with the argument - the licensing law in Scotland has been different since 1976 and for the part about music basically permits any kind of music in a pub without any kind of licence PROVIDED it is not the main business of the premises.

EG - a concert hall would need the equivalent of an entertainment licence - Sandy Bell's (a well-known session pub in Edinburgh) would not.

I do hope the Scots see sense in this matter. Since I am married to a Scot I asked her and she said they would.

Dave

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 07:25 AM

Reform is government/civil service speak for a 'cock-up'.

The situation in Scotland appears to quite sensible and working well -so there is every reason to expect something to replace it - which will be neither of those things. I hope I am wrong....

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 02:12 AM

As from midnight tonight - according to our Government - all live music is now safe from being distorted by licensing legislation.

Three cheers for our Government....!

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 06:49 PM

Cheers!

To our wives and sweethearts - may they never meet!


1,000 premises to open 24hrs.
The Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1886891,00.html

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: ET
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 04:03 AM

A local pub that has had Sessions in the "back" room applied, via the Brewery, for entertainment restricted to 2 performers, whatever they are. When this was pointed out to the landlord he said "oh thats the Brewery wanting no trouble. Don't worry. You can play in private".

Both are misunderstandings of the present law I think. The back room in quesion has a route through to the only ladies toilet in the place so its hardly "private", even if that were allowed.

The Session continues tonight however. I wonder if, like the 2 in the bar rule, enforcement might be patchy or non existant, although enforcement of serving to drunks, children etc will be enforced to make sure that there is not an escalation in violence, so the Govenment can claim "alls well".

Incidentally, I wonder if those playing music and who have to have a domestic pass out, have applied to the domestic authorities for an extension until 4 am?

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Hopfolk
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 07:22 AM

I thought this legislation only applied to commercial and/or amplified music anyway. What relevance does that have to a folk Session?

CamoJohn

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: GUEST,Pavane
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 08:14 AM

Oh dear - like most people, you haven't been listening.
It applies to almost ALL music ANYWHERE that there is the slightest risk that there may be members of the public present.

Luckily for everyone, Morris Dancing and Church services are exempt.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 10:16 AM

I thought this legislation only applied to commercial and/or amplified music anyway. What relevance does that have to a folk Session?

I suspect that any existing ones should be able to continue (even without entertainment permission) not because the words of the law make them safe from LA enforcement but because intitially they will be too busy with other more pressing matters.

The problem is presented more to any new folk sessions and I think the answer to this one is possibly for you to try and set-up a new local folk session. Then you can tell us the relevance of the new legislation. I fear that any licensee is only going to agree to your request if they first think it is legal and will not get them into trouble. The test is what they will be advised by the local authority.

If they are advised that it will require a variation on their existing Premises Licence, effectively going though the whole process again and making another payment - I fear the chances of the licensee being prepared to host a folk session will not then be very high.

Perhaps you could ask your LA what they would advise under these circumstances and inform us? The first step is to see what response LAs will make to these 'grey' areas of the new law.

I have made a case to my LA that folk sessions are considered by them as a performance of incidental live music and exempt. I await their rsponse - not with any great optimism.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 10:25 AM

BBC2's Culture Show is doing a piece on the impact of licensing on a range of entertainments, including live music, 7pm this Thursday, 24 November 2005 (8pm in Scotland).

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 11:34 AM

Futher information available on
Gallery of Mudcat Quotations
Giok

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Tootler
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 06:09 PM

Saw the culture show on BBC2 tonight. Not very cheering.

Did not feature any folk sessions, or anything outside London - Naturally!

However they did feature a pub that had Jazz sessions on the two in a bar rule that was going to stop because of the Health & Safety restrictions his local council wanted to impose as a condition of his licence.

Most of the feature was on outdoor entertainment and the problems licencing imposed - having to apply for a licence every time and the costs and time involved.

The government was quoted as saying that they wished to encourage live entertainment - yet their actions seem designed to have the opposite effect.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: ET
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 02:43 AM

Having said what I have said on enforcement I noted in the news for the first night of "de-regulation" film of "Licensing Enforcement" offices out enforcing and paid for by the new large licensing fees. I think they were after licensees serving drunks and kids but I wonder when they will turn their attention to sessions etc.

As has been made clear by Shambles and many others, any live music, other than acoustic Morris or in Churches in caught by this Act. Any music if the public are present needs a premise licence (premise is any place including a street or field) or a temporary event notice. All cost money and all is very bureacratic!!!

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: ET
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 04:13 AM

This was reported in the local paper. I plan to write (again) to the Ministry of Fun (DCMS) on these linces but would appreciate your views?

Licensing Act 2003 Schedule 1

THE ISSUE

Not yet getting much publicity but potentially a source of embarrassment for the Government is the requirement for a licence for all, including acoustic, music, played when the public are present.

AN EXAMPLE

A Northern town council traditionally has a Carole Service in the main square lead by the mayor.   This year the District Council demanded a temporary event notice and £21.   A row and publicity followed. The district council withdrew realising the disastrous effect of trying to prosecute for holding an unlicensed Carol concert. Maximum penalty is £20,000 and or 6 months imprisonment!!!!!

SOLUTION.

Simply listen to the 120,000 musicians who signed an electronic petition. If you cant bring yourself to remove "live music" from the Schedule, use a Ministerial Order to add the word "amplified" to "live music".

THE EFFECT

Would be to free up all classical and traditional music from this bureaucracy and avoid fiascos above. All traditional musicians would be grateful and most are traditional labour voters!

PUBLIC CONSQEUENCES   would be NIL.   There has never been a complaint about acoustic music.   In the debate in Hansard Kim Howells spoke of the volume of music made by Japanese drummers. Until he mentioned them little was known about this. They are not a problem in the UK

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 12:22 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

The government has published a response to Lord Redesdale's question about the retrospective and covert alteration by DCMS of the 1.7m gig claim made by former licensing minister Richard Caborn in the DCMS press release of 25/08/04. A copy of the question and response is appended below.

Responding for the government, Lord Davies confirms that the Live Music Forum (LMF) was not consulted on the press release alteration 'as the change was a minor one, and the executive summary of MORI's report, which had been sent to journalists with the original press release, had already made clear the range of venues covered by the survey.'

Predictably, this is highly misleading, and is no trivial matter. MORI's reputation is involved, for one thing. Further Parliamentary questions will be raised as a result. The credibility of the Live Music Forum is also at stake because of its relationship with DCMS and statements about the survey findings that have been made in the press by LMF chairperson Feargal Sharkey.

Lord Davies' answer is misleading for these reasons:

1. It is absurd to claim the press release alteration was 'minor'. In finding that the original 1.7m claim was misleading, the Market Research Society Board adjusted this estimate downwards by about 25% to 1.3m for the venues cited by Caborn. This is a significant adjustment by any standards, but remains concealed as a result of the alterations made by DCMS. It also seems highly unlikely to me that MORI should request changes to a minister's long-since published words without also requiring that the amended document, particularly on a public website, should clearly indicate that changes have been made and the nature of those changes.

2. Merely listing the 'range of venues' in the executive summary did not provide the data necessary to verify Caborn's 1.7m gig claim for 'bars, clubs and restaurants'. To do this you need the number of venues in each venue category surveyed, the number within each category which actually hosted live music, and the estimated total number of such venues in England and Wales. This data was only published in the full MORI report some time after the publication of the 25/08/04 press release and executive summary. Indeed, despite three subsequent Parliamentary questions (including the most recent), the government has so far avoided publishing gig estimates by venue category. Why? Could it be that to do so would undermine the 'flourishing' claim for live music in bars and restaurants, and hence suggest that licensing had harmed live music in this important area?

3. The phrase 'bars, clubs and restaurants' only occurred in Caborn's original quote. Lord Davies avoids stating this explicitly, the implication being that only the body of the text was changed, rather than a minister's actual words. The MRSB has already confirmed that the disciplinary action they imposed on the MORI member did not include altering the minister's quote.

Even if you don't care much that the estimate of 1.7m live gigs a year was for all venues 'whose main business isn't live music', to claim that this indicates a flourishing live music scene is ridiculous. This figure translates into less than one live gig a month in 151,176 restaurants, hotels, student unions, clubs, members clubs and associations, church and community halls in England and Wales. Remember we're not talking about solely professional or even semi-professional performances; unpaid gigs were included.

~ ~ ~
Lord Redesdale asked Her Majesty's Government:

What consultations they held with (a) Market and Opinion Research International, and (b) the Live Music Forum prior to the addition of an extra point under "Notes to Editors" and the change to the quotation by the Minister of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport contained in the press release issued by the department on 25 August, entitled Live Music Scene—The Verdict; who sanctioned those changes; and when they were made. [HL2339]

Lord Davies of Oldham: On 10 May 2005, MORI informed the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) of a complaint made to the Market Research Society (MRS) by a third party. The complainant argued that DCMS's press release of 25 August 2004, announcing the results of MORI's research into the performance of live music, had contained a misleading statement. The MRS upheld this complaint, and on 27 September 2005 MORI asked DCMS if it would amend its press release by adding the words "and other venues" to the reference to "bars, clubs and restaurants", and by inserting an additional footnote in the "Notes to Editors" to list the range of venues covered by the survey. DCMS officials complied with this request on 21 October. The Live Music Forum was not consulted as the change was a minor one, and the executive summary of MORI's report, which had been sent to journalists with the original press release, had already made clear the range of venues covered by the survey.

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 09:54 AM

Some thoughts on S177 - details of which can be found earlier in this thread. The practical benefit of which was always thought a bit suspect..............

My local has been granted its extended drinking hours but cannot hold any outside amplified music. Presumambly due to local objections.
It can however stage non-amplified music outside but with the condition that this stops at 9pm!

Now if these small premises had a imposed safe capacity limit of less than 200 - effectivly no conditions could legally be place upon non amplified live music up to midnight and a condition such as this one that limited it to a 9pm finish would not be legal.

The vice-chairman of the local Licensing Committee states that the advice he has received means that this condition is legal. If so - I can only assume that the LA had not imposed a safe capacity limit. And without this of course - S177 does not apply......................

I am sure that they are not cynically omitting this safe capacity limit just so they can impose conditions on non amplified live music in these small premises and if they were that our Government would not approve. Or would they?

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 10:04 AM

I am sure that they are not cynically omitting this safe capacity limit just so they can impose conditions on non amplified live music in these small premises and if they were that our Government would not approve. Or would they?

The other point is that IF they do impose a safe capacity limit - many of our local authorities may consider that bouncers will have to automatically employed at these small premises to count heads and ensure that the safe limit is not exceeded..............

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 02:53 PM

Sheffield Carols 2005

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 05:27 AM

I was told by a regular in our local (non music) J.D. Wetherspoons in Weymouth that they have just installed two huge flatscreen TVs.

They also handed me the in-house magazine - which had the following article.

MUSIC
hits the right note.

The Tuesday Bell in Lisburn, has brought music to the ears of its customers. The Northern Ireland pub is now showing music videos on plasma screens. It means that all of the company's outlets in the province now play music.

The pub's manager, Alison McClelland, said; "It is great news for our customers, who love their music."

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Hopfolk
Date: 08 Dec 05 - 07:13 AM

That's a bittersweet thing for music-lovers... It's not their music, or live.

PS: keep posting, this thread's almost at 300 :-)

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 08:56 PM

The following letter of mine was published in The Dorset Echo 9 December 2005.

If his comments reported in the Dorset Echo on Monday December 5 are anything to go by, perhaps Weymouth and Portland Borough Council's Licensing Committee Chairman, Mike Goodman would be well suited in Parliament? Referring to the early days of the Licensing Act, he said:. "I don't believe adults should be curtailed and I don't agree with curfews."

It would certainly appear that he and his committee do not agree with curtailing and placing curfews upon extended drinking hours, even when there are direct objections to this from close neighbours. Perhaps if he lived where some of these objectors do he may think differently.

However, in recent reports of licensing applications in these pages, I have see little reluctance on the part of this committee to eagerly curtail adults and place curfews upon some of their activities, even when no public objections are made to activities like playing darts - that are certainly less troublesome than drinking alcohol.

One example was when granting extended drinking hours for The New Inn in Easton. Despite valid local objections to this application. Councillor Goodman's committee placed curfews restricting live music and indoor sports to an 11pm finish (although no public objections or concerns to those activities were reported) but for some reason a curfew of midnight on the playing of recorded music!

I am sure that any neighbour disturbed by loud music from 11pm will take much consolation in that is only recorded music keeping them awake for that extra hour.

Perhaps councillor Goodman would now agree that whatever activities adults choose do on these premises and the times that these activities end are not really the business of his committee - unless there are specific and valid public objections made to these particular activities

Given Councillor Goodman's comments can I ask if we can now expect to see an end to these kind of automatic licensing conditions being imposed upon the activities of adults in applications or variations where there are no specific objections made to them?

And will a review now be undertaken of those curfews and curtailments that his committee has imposed upon these activities to date, in all cases where there were no specific public objections made to them and therefore no grounds under the four main objectives of The Licensing Act 2003 for the Licensing Committee to impose these curfews?

ENDS

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Leadfingers
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 08:59 PM

I cant resist this !

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Leadfingers
Date: 10 Dec 05 - 08:59 PM

300 !!!!!