Affected by The Licensing Act 2003

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 09:27 AM

Sham, Andy doesn't have to say any more than he wants to.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 09:11 AM

With all due respect and sympathy for your position - all that is required to assist with the general postion and to possibly avoid other festivals being cancelled at such a late stage - is the details of exactly how this event was affected by the Licensing Act 2003.

For as you have publicly stated that this event has fallen foul of the local interpretation of this legisaltion - perhaps it is not too much to ask for the details of this interpretation to be provided?

For this may prove to be of benefit of anyone who may be unfortunate find themselves in a similar position to the one you now find yourself in?

And this information may actually prevent your local situation from getting worse - without uninformed speculation which does risk the wrong targets being blamed.

When the detail of the interpretation is known - I think most of us would accept that those with all the local information should be left to deal with the local situation and would be more than happy to leave you to what you feel you need to do to ensure that there will be a Miskin 2008.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Andy Jackson
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 08:38 AM

I think the only details you need to know at the moment are contained in the above posting and I repeat the important words here:
"Furthermore, any speculation or laying of blame could very easily upset the delicate negotiations we are involved in to secure the
future of Miskin at Easter".

Please leave this one to me, I will know where to go if I need help for next year.
I know we are all pulling in the same direction but even plough horses weave around a bit and confuse the furrow.
Best wishes and thanks for caring,
Andy

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 08:18 AM

Subject: RE: Miskin at Easter 07
From: Miskin Man - PM
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 06:12 PM

It is with a very heavy heart that I have to make this announcement.

Miskin at Easter 07 is cancelled.

Following, in our view, over zealous application of powers embodied in the new licencing act, we have been forced to cancel Miskin at Easter for this year. We have been through lengthy complicated meetings and hearings, but we always believed we would succeed, sadly not this time. Please don't ask questions, or offer suggestions, we have fought very hard and been around most routes. Furthermore, any speculation or laying of blame could very easily upset the delicate negotiations we are involved in to secure the
future of Miskin at Easter. Please bear in mind that the situation is such that any impromptu gathering in the Miskin area during Easter could also jeopardise our future hopes.

You will appreciate the size of the problem in informing so many people. Please pass this information on to anyone you know who might have been planning to come to Miskin "on spec".

You will appreciate how heartbroken we are by this decision.

Thank you for the amazing support you have given us over the years, we will be back.

We love you all,

Andy & Jillie

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 08:10 AM

The following thread is (now) about the late cancellation of this festival due to licensing issues.

Miskin 2007

Perhaps someone would be kind enough to place the details in this thread?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:25 PM

House of Commons Monday 05 March 2007 - Oral Questions:

Licensing Act
8. Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): What assessment she [Tessa Jowell] has made of the effect of the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 on the performance of live music. [124568]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Shaun Woodward): The live music forum will produce its analysis in the next few weeks. Current evidence is anecdotal, but it none the less suggests a broadly neutral impact.

Mr. Moss: According to the MORI research commissioned by the Minister's Department, only 60 per cent. of smaller venues that previously offered live music were given licences under the LicensingAct 2003, many of which have expensive conditions attached. Will the Minister tell the House what proportion of that group implemented the conditions? If he cannot do so, does that not render the statistics worthless, and what is the value of the Department's boast that the Act is good for live music?

Mr. Woodward: As the hon. Gentleman knows—he takes a keen interest in this area, which we welcome—the research published in December looked at 2,000 small establishments. It discovered that in only 3 per cent. of cases the new licensing requirements were a deterrent. From the anecdotal evidence, however, the impact appears to be broadly neutral, although it may be better than that. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are conducting a detailed analysis, which we will publish later. He should remember that the new process means that there is only one application, one fee and no renewals. The additional bonus is that local residents, who were seriously affected in the past by live music, now have a say, which is important.

Anne Milton (Guildford) (Con): I wonder whether the Minister is aware that over 38,000 people have signed the Downing street petition on live music. What comfort can he give that ever-growing body of people? Does he agree with the person who was recently reported in the press as saying that whoever dreamtup Downing street petitions was—and I quote with apologies, Mr. Speaker—"a prat"?

Mr. Woodward: We absolutely agree with the 30,000 people who rightly do not want music and dance to be restricted by burdensome licensing regulations. If the hon. Lady looks at the changes, she will see that there is one application process and one fee, with no renewals. Inconsistent fees, which were often excessive, and the standard book of conditions have been removed, and the fact that 63 per cent. of venues have either obtained a music licence or put on live music via other means shows that the Act is working. In a survey, 55 per cent. of people said that they found the process easy, although I admit that 25 per cent. found it hard. We will work to improve the system—we believe that it has already been improved—and we will take very seriously the evidence submitted in the next few weeks to see whether there are more improvements to be made.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Feb 07 - 11:43 AM

Todays Times - Article on Music Licensing

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: bubblyrat
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 12:05 PM

The thing to do is wait until the government passes whatever potty laws about live music in pubs that it sees fit(or in Labour"s case ,unfit )to do.The next day,ALL pub musicians EVERYWHERE go to a pub (providing landlord agrees !) and have a stonking good session. Then someone of the group dials 999 and INSISTS that the police come and arrest all these terrible criminals !! The resulting chaos should A) bring the matter to full public attention
B) completely overload the police force & the judiciary
C) bring about the downfall of the morons who dreamed up this crap.
.......Hopefully !!

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 08:00 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

Ged O'Sullivan, proprietor of Ryans Bar in Stoke Newington (contact details
below), has issued a challenge to Feargal Sharkey, chair of the Live Music
Forum:

'Feargal Sharkey should come and talk to me about the problems I've had
getting permission to have live music,' he said. 'I estimate that it will
have cost me nearly £20,000 by the time the process is finished, and this
does not take into account loss of earnings. And that is just to have the
live music that we've always had. Even then I am not sure of the outcome. I
know many other licensees who are just not bothering because of the hassle.'

Mr O'Sullivan's entertainment licensing problems, due to the new Act's 'none
in a bar rule', are to be included in a BBC TV documentary due for broadcast
in the spring. His venue, previously well known for traditional music, used
to operate under the exemption for one or two live musicians that was
abolished by the new Licensing Act on 24 November 2005. Mr O'Sullivan's
challenge to Sharkey came in response to recent LMF comments about the
impact of the new law:

'To a great extent MORI's research had confirmed the [Impact of the Act]
sub-group's view that, broadly speaking, it was "business as usual" since
the new Act was implemented. Nevertheless it was important now to look at
where there could be improvement. He [John Smith, General Secretary,
Musicians Union] said the sub-group's message to Ministers should be that,
although the research shows that the 2003 Act had had no adverse impact on
live music provision, there is still room for improvement. Therefore,
efforts should go into ensuring that live music provision is increased over
what was previously available.'
[Minutes of LMF meeting 08 December 2006, Agenda item 3 - Draft
recommendations - i. Impact of Act]
http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/Creative_industries/music/live_music_forum.htm
(See 'Related information')

This despite the fact that MORI's research revealed about 40% of bars had
lost any automatic entitlement to live music. Under the old regime 100% of
venues licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises were
automatically entitled to have one or two live musicians. MORI's research
also failed to check whether live music licence conditions, such as fitting
noise limiters, had been implemented. If such conditions are not
implemented, having live music remains illegal.

Ryans Bar, 181 Stoke Newington Church Street, London N16 0UL
Tel: [phone]

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 10:48 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Unmarked draft revisions in the Licensing Guidance further undermine the government's public safety rationale for licensing.

When DCMS published the latest draft Licensing Guidance for public consultation (16 January) it looked as though the proposed changes were marked with coloured fonts. However, it seems that other substantial proposed revisions are unmarked. These include a new 'Public safety' section, paras 2.17-2.29, pp20-21.

This deals with new fire safety legislation: the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 which came into force on 01 October 2006. See: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051541.htm#6

The new draft public safety section in the DCMS Licensing Guidance confirms that as a result of the new fire safety law, fire certificates issued under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 cease to have effect. Moreover, it also states that:

'... under section 43 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 any conditions imposed by the licensing authority that relate to any requirements or prohibitions that are or could be imposed by the Order have no effect. This means that licensing authorities should not seek to impose fire safety conditions where the Order applies.'

The Guidance states that the Order will apply to 'most premises'. This certainly includes bars, pubs, hotels and restaurants.

Safe capacities
Para 2.26 of the draft revised Guidance includes this advice: '... if a capacity has been imposed through other legislation, it would be unnecessary to reproduce it in a premises licence.'

Fire officers are setting a 'safe capacity' for workplaces using the new fire safety legislation, where they believe this is necessary. However, I understand that Westminster Council continues to impose safe capacities on bars through licensing, on the grounds that this is necessary to prevent crime and disorder, and public nuisance.

Licensing Act amended
The Licensing Act has itself has already been amended to take the new fire safety regime into account, specifically s.177, 'Dancing and live music in certain small premises'. The reference to fire certificates in the context of 'permitted capacity' has been removed under s.177(8). The changes are not shown on the statute as published on the web: http://wwwopsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/30017--j.htm#177 but are set out under Schedule 3, para 50, of the Fire Safety Order (URL already cited above).

Other useful links:
'Guidance for business' on the new fire safety regime from the Department for Communities and Local Government:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1162101

DCMS link to the draft revised Licensing Guidance in PDF format (1.9mb):
http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B63BEF81-2AA1-433A-84CB-237F257008A3/0/DraftrevisedGuidancetobeissuedundersection182oftheLicensingAct2003.pdf

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 12:55 PM

The folowing from Hamish Birchall.

A researcher working for the BBC Radio 4 'PM' programme wants 'particular examples of people who have been affected by the specifics of the current [licensing] guidance, and who might be willing to talk about why they think it should change'.

I have taken this to mean, among other things, where musicians have lost work because their local authority has interpreted the 'incidental music' exemption restrictively. I have already sent details of some affected musicians who are keen to talk about their experience.

However, if you have been similarly affected, or if licensing has adversely affected gigs in any other way that you know about please email [e-mail]

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 08:58 AM

Incidental music

3.19 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 to another activity which is not itself entertainment or the provision of entertainment facilities. This exemption does not extend to the provision of other forms of regulated entertainment.

3.20 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.

2 Entertainment facilities falling within paragraph 1(2)(b) of Schedule 1 of the Act (club premises) are not covered by this section of the Guidance.

3.21 In the first instance, the operator of the premises concerned must decide whether or not he considers that he needs a premises licence. In considering whether or not music is incidental, one factor may be whether or not, against a background of the other activities already taking place, the addition of music will create the potential to undermine the four licensing objectives of the Act. Other factors might include some or all of the following:
•
Is the music the main reason for people attending the premises?
•
Is the music advertised as the main attraction?
•
Does the volume of the music disrupt or predominate over other activities?
Conversely, factors which would not normally be relevant include:
•
Number of musicians, e.g. an orchestra may provide incidental music at a large exhibition.
•
Whether musicians are paid.
•
Whether the performance is pre-arranged.
•
Whether a charge is made for admission to a premises.

3.22 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 cases of doubt, operators should seek the advice of the licensing authority, particularly with regard to their policy on enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Deleted: 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 juke box 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..

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 08:38 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

DCMS yesterday (Tue 16.01.07) published draft revised Licensing Guidance for public consultation:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Press_notices/archive_2007/dcms004_07.htm

The closing date for representations is 11 April 2007. This can be done by post (see link above) or by email to:

[e-mail]

The key draft revision for musicians concerns the meaning of 'incidental music' (para 3.21, p30). The new wording does seem to fulfill the DCMS pledge, announced on 11.12.06 in their Simplification Plan, that the policy intention is to exclude carol singers and buskers. To that extent the draft revision should be welcomed.

However, in other respects the changes are a nonsense. Quibbling about whether a gig is advertised, whether it is the main reason for attendance, and whether volume 'predominates over other activities', is petty when set against the exemption for big screen broadcast entertainment and the light touch for jukeboxes.

In the transition to the new licensing regime, all bars with recorded sound systems were automatically given an authorisation for the playing of recorded music. Local authorities could not, and cannot impose conditions on the use of those sound systems - unless there are complaints that trigger a review of the licence.

Recorded music is often played at a level that predominates over other activities. If DCMS want to treat live and recorded music equally, as they have suggested in the past, they should make clear that the volume of live music is only relevant if there are complaints. Local authorities have adequate powers under separate legislation to deal with it, and both local authorities and the police can close noisy licensed premises immediately for up to 24 hours.

The rights of residents to a quiet night's sleep and the right of musicians to perform have equal legal status (Articles 8 & 10 respectively of the European Convention: right to respect for private and family life; right to freedom of expression).

Elsewhere, the Guidance concedes that 'artistic freedom of expression is a fundamental right' (para 13.64, p103). The important implications for the interpretation of 'incidental' are plainly ignored in the revised 'incidental music' section.

There is no change to the convoluted and misleading section about private gigs (para 3.17, p29). DCMS misleadingly implies that licensing may be triggered only if guests are themselves charged with a view to profit. In fact, the Licensing Act specifically states that a charge may be paid 'by or on behalf' of such guests. A professional band's fee is a charge, and it is made with a view to profit. Payment on behalf of guests is a common scenario at private functions where the bandleader may also be 'concerned in the organisation or management' of the entertainment. See Licensing Act 2003, Schedule 1, para 1(4)(b): http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/30017--k.htm#sch1

Note also the Guidance makes clear that the provision of entertainment facilities includes 'musical instruments made available for use by the public to entertain others at licensed premises.' (Para 3.10, p28)

In fact this provision can apply almost anywhere, and is not restricted to licensed premises. It is in any case absurd in the light of the big screen broadcast exemption, and the light-touch for jukeboxes. How often does the provision of a musical instrument represent a greater risk to those present or to society generally?

Lastly, although local authorities must 'have regard to' the Guidance, 'The Guidance does not in any way replace the statutory provisions of the 2003 Act or add to its scope and licensing authorities should note that interpretation of the Act is a matter for the courts.' (Para 1.8, p12). So what the Act itself says is what really counts. There is no sign yet that DCMS will amend it.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 08:22 AM

It is now time to have your say here


Get writing...........

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 04:36 AM

The following was posted (by Peter) on uk.music.folk.

AI 176

Rant

Sebastian Scotney, who runs the Jazz Development Trust, reports hotfoot
from the battle over the 2003 Licensing Act (and sent me this email)

For regular readers of this column in search of their quick fix of
industrial strength rant, just read Richard Morrison's loud and clear take
on unnecessary legislation.

"What we have seen over the past nine years has been an unprecedented
increase in the number of political diktats that attempt to regiment every
facet of our existence - from health, diet and education to the law and
liberty. At the root of this trend are power mania and arrogance. We are
now ruled by people who [.] want to control the smallest aspects of our
lives [.]. The endless, pointless meddling of recent years has simply
stopped good people doing their jobs well" he wrote in The Times on
September 26.

You're feeling better already. But if you read on, you're in for a
heart-stirring underdog battle being fought on one such diktat affecting
the arts. Line up here for the UK culture sector's version of the McLibel
Two, a farmers' co-operative from Mali taking on Monsanto, or indeed David
v Goliath.

The issue at stake is whether wide screens and stereos with powerful
amplification have legal rights to entertain the public which are not
accorded to the ordinary citizens of England and Wales - whether indeed
live performers need to be subject to a degree of control which is deemed
unnecessary in virtually the whole of the rest of Europe.

In the David corner, a tenacious man with an unrivalled knowledge of all
things licensing called Hamish Birchall; and in the Goliath corner the
DCMS's Live Music Forum, summoned and marshalled by civil servants,
usually fronted by the Ulster hellfire preaching tones of Feargal Sharkey.
"They warned that a plague of locusts would descend."

The DCMS gave the forum two main roles: first it was to spin the virtues
of the Act, and second to promote a politically convenient message about a
thriving live music scene. Or, translated into Sir Humphrey-speak, it was
to "take forward the ministerial commitment to maximise the take-up of
reforms in the Licensing Act 2003 relating to the performances of live
music" and "to promote the performance of live music generally".

With its third task, to monitor the effects of the Act, there has always
been the danger that it would either be in contradiction with, or be
subsumed into, the other two. Faced with this inconvenience, DCMS civil
servants must have been sorely tempted to adopt the Groucho Marx solution:
"Look, why should we quarrel about a thing like this? We'll take it right
out, eh?"

But if they ever thought they might, they weren't reckoning on Birchall's
tenacity, drive and detailed knowledge. He has been a consistent thorn in
the side of the DCMS as they attempt to put a positive spin on the effects
of the Act for live music. A complaint about misleading conclusions said
to be based on MORI research was upheld by the Market Research Society.
The DCMS then tried to cover their tracks by amending the press release.

Birchall has also brought to wide public attention some of the laughable
inconsistencies and absurdities if the Act. Here are three examples of his
work:

In March 2006 Westminster Council confirmed to the Radio 4 Today programme
that culture secretary Tessa Jowell herself had committed an offence
against her own department's Act by singing at an advertised public event
in Victoria Park Gardens.

In May BBC director general Mark Thompson found himself in the absurd
position of having to beg BBC employees to attend a recording of Top of
the Pops following legal advice that an audience constituted of members of
the public would put the event in breach of the Act.

And only last month the DCMS was forced to put out a "clarification" on
carol singing which is beyond satire: if a performance is "spontaneous,
incidental to other activities or part of a religious service", it is not
licensable; however, if a carol concert has an audience it will be
regulated entertainment and will need a licence. So does that include a
group of carol singers performing on a station concourse or in a shopping
centre? "If a carol service is organised, advertised and provided for an
audience there would seem to be little doubt that this would be
licensable" says the department, according to the Daily Telegraph on
December 11.

These three examples show that this law is a few fetlocks short of an ass.

Birchall's valuable work continues.

If you want to be better informed sign up for his regular emails at
[e-mail].,uk

There is also a No 10 petition at ?http://petitions.pm.gov/licensing/

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 01:17 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

According to DCMS, their latest research shows that 'the main reasons given for not having applied to put on live music were that the venue was not suitable or that they simply wouldn't stage live music.'

It is worth remembering that, where such a view was expressed, it was the personal view of the licensee being interviewed by MORI last August.

Pubs accounted for about 45% of the survey. These days pub landlords commonly move on after only a year or two.

Their successor might well take a different view of live music - but if the pub is one of the 40% or so without a live music permission, they would face a bill of several hundred pounds, at least, to get it.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 09:51 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Yesterday, Mon 11 December 2006, DCMS published its 'simplification plan', part of a government drive to cut red tape and associated costs:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Publications/archive_2006/simplificationplan_2006.htm

Licensing is the focus of the DCMS response to the Better Regulation Commission (BRC). Among the measures proposed is 'Clarification of "incidental" music provisions':

'To make clear in legislation that the policy intention is to exclude e.g. carol singers, buskers, puppet shows for children and poetry readings from requiring a licence. This measure would most likely be delivered via regulation / and or Guidance.'
['Lifting the burden - Improving and realising community capacity', DCMS December 2006, 'Areas to be explored to achieve further reductions in administrative burdens', p23, para H - see URL above]

The deadline for implementation of any agreed changes is March 2007. Note that the Act includes a provision that allows the Secretary of State by order to add, vary or remove descriptions of entertainment (Schedule 1, Part 1, para 4).

This DCMS simplification measure is encouraging - as far as it goes. But it does not go very far. It does not suggest, for example, that there will be clarification for a small bar advertising a low-key, weekly gig.

In published advice, both DCMS and local authorities have strongly implied that advertising disapplies the 'incidental' exemption - despite the fact that advertising is not mentioned in the Act or Licensing Guidance.

As DCMS revealed last week, about 40% of small venues have no live music authorisation. Clarification of the incidental exemption for such venues is therefore vital. A liberal interpretation, unless there were complaints, is the common-sense approach. Even for a small venue this could represent substantial cost savings.

Since the government's new fire safety regulations came into force on 01 October, the rationale for entertainment licensing live music as a secondary business in a bar is now solely about pre-empting noise complaints.

The government has yet to produce any evidence that live music is a greater source of complaints than recorded music, or noisy punters outside. In the transition to the new licensing regime all pubs and bars were allowed to keep their recorded sound systems automatically.

They are also, of course, free to provide broadcast entertainment with unlimited amplification. The government clearly accepts that existing noise legislation available to local authorities is adequate - indeed it now includes provisions that apply specifically to noisy licensed premises, 11pm-7am.

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the BRC's response to the DCMS plan is lukewarm:

'We will be looking for the department to explore a broader range of simplification options across its entire policy framework with a view to producing a richer plan next year. Currently we see only patchy evidence of high level leadership or pervasive cultural change. There needs to be more determined leadership in support of a shift in the Better Regulation culture within the department.'

See: ahttp://www.brc.gov.uk/scrutiny/simplification_plans.asp and scroll down to Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: IanC
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 12:06 PM

I'm interested in the idea that the Potterne Mummers Play goes back to 1406.

Ashwell mummers never start so early. Our present performances begin from 1930, though I suppose you could say that the inspiration comes from just after 1120 (when the pubs used to close before the new licensing act.

:-)
Ian

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 10:42 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

'Why should we need a licence to sing?'
by Philip Johnston, Home Affairs editor,
Daily Telegraph, Monday 11 December 2006

'As a boy and a treble in a church choir, this was the best time of the year. The vicar used to take us carol singing and we would be invited in for mince pies and sausage rolls. So far as I am aware, we did not need a licence for this most innocent and traditional of pastimes. Why on earth do you need permission to sing carols?
'But you do now that the Licensing Act 2003 has come into force. Then again, you might not. The fact is that millions are going out carolling probably unaware of what they should be doing to make the practice lawful....

Read the full article at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/12/11/do1102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/12/11/ixopinion.html

STOP PRESS: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport will today publish its 'Simplification Plan', part of the government's proposals to cut red tape. Reliable sources inform me that the DCMS simplification plan will include the Licensing Act, and some of the measures relate to the music provisions.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 06:16 AM

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 11th December 2006

600 YEAR OLD WILTSHIRE TRADITION ENDANGERED BY NEW LICENSING LAWS


The Potterne Mummers Play has been performed annually for hundreds of years but it is now under threat from the 2003 Licensing Act. Recognising the importance of our heritage, the Act allows some traditional events, such as Morris Dancing, to take place without a license, but not these traditional English Folk Plays. Potterne's Mumming play, much like up to 300 others played throughout the country each year, has 7 members of cast and takes just 15 minutes to perform.

The present day Potterne Mummers are carrying on a tradition that goes back to 1406 making this the 600th year that the play has been performed in and around Potterne. Mummer Bob Berry said, "This is part of our cultural heritage and it should not be lost." A more recent, but every bit as important, tradition for the Potterne Mummers is their annual collection for the Wiltshire Air Ambulance. Last year the Potterne Mummers raised nearly £1000 during collections at the numerous Wiltshire pubs they visited in the days running up to Christmas.

But now they can only perform in pubs that have ticked the box for performing plays on their entertainment license. Unfortunately, most local publicans, breweries and other establishments left this crucial box un-ticked. Many pubs thought that Mumming Plays would, understandably, come under the same exemption as Morris Dancing. Sadly they were wrong.
To make a variation in any license the establishment currently has in place would now cost in the region of £190 plus costs.

Potterne Mummers are now faced with the prospect of not performing their centuries old play or encouraging the individual pubs to apply for a temporary event notice (TEN). These come at a cost of £21 for each venue.

Potterne Mummers were hoping to perform their fifteen minute comic play at 23 pubs between the 19th and 24th December 2006 and once again raise much needed revenue towards the Wiltshire Air Ambulance, but they will have to pull out of at least half of those venues. Many of these pubs are Wadworth owned which are the Mummers particular favourites. They will only be able to perform in the venues that have the relevant licenses in place.

Disappointed and frustrated with the problems that have arisen, Bob Berry added, "We want to bring this unsatisfactory law into question because it is yet another threat to our heritage and traditions. The Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) state in their web site's Q&A section that the Act would not kill live traditional music in small venues. We would like to bring it to their attention that it is doing just that, and any exemptions should include other elements of seasonal traditions and customs such as Mumming plays."

Bob Berry
Wiltshire Folk Arts on behalf of Potterne Mummers
The Potterne Mummers

Contact Information:
Bob Berry
Wiltshire Folk Arts   
c/o 19 Whistley Rd,
Potterne
Devizes
Wiltshire
SN10 5QY
07714 550990
[e-mail]
www.wiltshirefolkarts.org.uk

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 07:26 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

House of Commons, Thursday 07 December 2006:

David Heath (Lib Dem, Somerton and Frome): ... Lastly, may we have a debate on, and perhaps a review of, the Licensing Act 2003 - in respect not of alcohol licences, the area that has so often engendered debate, but of public performances?

Here I ought to declare an interest, as honorary president of the National Association of Brass Band Conductors, west of England area. The Leader of the House may be aware that a council in Cornwall determined that a brass band in its area could perfectly properly play Christmas carols, provided that it restricted itself to carols such as "Away in a Manger" and "Silent Night" - but that if it strayed to playing anything that did not have a directly religious content, such as "Jingle Bells", "Frosty the Snowman" or "Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer", it would have to pay a licence fee.

Happily, that particular situation has been satisfactorily resolved, but there are huge discrepancies between council licensing committees throughout the country as to what comprises a public performance. Can we not have some degree of consistency, and one that errs in favour of the Christmas spirit?
Jack Straw (Leader of the House of Commons) [after addressing previous points raised by Mr Heath including a request for a debate on Iraq]: ... and on his final point, on which I think it is fair to say that he was blowing his own trumpet -

[laughter]

Mrs. May: And you complain about my script writer!

Mr. Straw: At least my last comment was unscripted - although I accept that it was just as bad as many of the right hon. Lady's. The hon. Gentleman has a strong case for an immediate review, based on what he says about the kinds of difficulties that local authorities are getting into over Christmas carols. I promise to draw what he says to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

See:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm061207/debtext/61207-0004.htm#06120759001162

Link to Daily Mail article of 27 October 2006:

'Council enforce licence fee for band playing non-religious Jingle Bells'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=413100&in_page_id=1770

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 08:59 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

Firstly, a correction and apology: In yesterday's press release, I was wrong to suggest that DCMS used the 2004 MORI live music data when contrasting the position under the old and new licensing regimes. In fact the comparisons made yesterday in the press release were derived from questions in the latest survey.

Secondly, this doesn't alter the generally misleading nature of the DCMS headline claims.

For example: 'a quarter (25 per cent) of premises now have a licence to put on music for the first time'. As I pointed out, under the old regime, all premises with an alcohol licence ('justices on licence') could have one or two live musicians whenever they were open. The justices on licence was, in effect, a licence for one or two musicians - without it you could not even have one performer.

If DCMS meant premises that did not previously hold an alcohol licence or a public entertainment licence, they might be on safer ground - but no such distinction is made in the press release. If DCMS included members clubs, the claim would be disingenous because under the old regime such venues were generally exempt from the requirement to hold public entertainment licences.

The full DCMS/MORI report includes other disingenuous claims, such as: 'Some of those applying for a licence voluntarily added conditions including restrictions on the numbers of musicians they would have performing at one time.' [Footnote 7, p15, 'Licensing Act 2003 - The Experience of Smaller Establishments in applying for live music authorisation', December 2006]

The full context of these 'voluntary' arrangements is not discussed. In many cases, this option represented the least risk of local objections, local authority conditions, or both. It is also likely that licensing officers of the local authority 'negotiated' the two (or three) in a bar limit with the licensee, or their legal representative. This appeared to be the case at The Hub in Regent's Park - which has a 'three in a bar' limit, and must fit a noise limiter, among other things. The venue is about half a kilometre from the nearest house.

Venues that had PELs
The proportion of venues that DCMS now claim used to hold a public entertainment licence (PEL) is suspiciously high. The MORI survey of 2004 suggested that about 33% of venues had PELs (p13, 'A survey of live music staged in England and Wales in 2003/4', September 2004). That figure was surprising in itself - only two years before, the Home Office estimated that only 5% of licensed premises also held a PEL.

DCMS claim their new research shows 45% had PELs before the new regime came into force, a rise of about 12%. Both estimates cannot both be right - unless, perhaps, licensees were reporting both occasional and annual PELs. If that is the explanation, it could mean that a thorough re-interpretation of the data is required. There is a fundamental difference between an ongoing live music permission (annual PEL), and one-off PELs for the occasional gig.

Estimates of venue populations
This latest survey apparently used the Valuation Office Agency (www.voa.gov.uk) to source estimates of the total number of venues in each venue category. By contrast, the 2004 survey used a variety of different sources, including the British Beer & Pub Association (pubs), the British Hospitality Association (hotels), and the British Entertainment and Dance Association (small clubs).

The different sources give rise to as yet unexplained discrepancies between the two surveys. For example, the 2004 research estimated a total of 20,000 hotels and inns in England and Wales, accounting for 14.6% of the total estimated venue population across all categories (151,176).   

In the latest survey, the estimated total number of hotels and inns has dwindled to 7,844, less than half the previous estimate. This category now accounts for only 6% of the estimated total of all venues surveyed (135,704) - and yet the sample proportion (226) is 11%, little different from the 2004 survey.

No doubt more anomalies will emerge.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 01:24 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

DCMS claims that the latest MORI live music survey found 61% of smaller venues now have a live music authorisation: http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Press_notices/archive_2006/DCMS155_06.htm

Licensing minister Shaun Woodward said the results were 'encouraging'.

Feargal Sharkey shared his optimism: 'This picture is encouraging and confirms much of the evidence that the forum has uncovered. We know that the majority of venues – large and small – can now put on live music and that's fantastic news.'

But this is, of course, mostly spin.

The fact is that under the old rules 100% of venues with an alcohol licence could have one or two musicians whenever they were open. Now it would seem that around 40% have lost that automatic live music entitlement. And, of the 60% or so of venues that can now have more than two musicians, about half say they are unlikely to do so (with the notable exception of student unions).

There are good reasons to question the validity of the DCMS claims. Here a just a few:

1. Bars in densely populated areas tend to have the most difficulty getting an entertainment licence for live music. Reasons include residents' objections and local authority licence conditions. The overall 61% live music permission estimate probably conceals a lower proportion for licensed premises in densely populated areas (with a higher proportion in less densely populated areas). This could have implications for social inclusion policies. London was the only city specifically identified in the survey, as distinct from other areas that were regionally defined.

2. The new survey did not ask licensees whether they had actually implemented licence conditions for live music such as the installation of noise limiters, or providing door supervisers. Unless all licence conditions are implemented, the provision of live music remains illegal.

3. DCMS has made it clear that this latest MORI research is not the follow-up study to the first MORI live music survey of 2004. Despite this, DCMS has made comparisons with the first study's data. I believe these comparisons are invalid. Firstly, the new survey's venue categories differ from those in the 2004 study. 'Public Houses' was a distinct venue category in the first survey, but in the new survey this has changed to 'Public houses, wine bars and nightclubs'. Nightclubs, of course, almost by definition had public entertainment licences for music and dancing; the majority of pubs, by contrast, did not hold PELs. Once again it is likely to prove impossible to tease out the statistics for pubs alone. Secondly, even where the venue categories are the same, their proportions differ from those in the first survey, in some cases by quite a wide margin.

4. DCMS claim, for example, that 'of the small proportion (7 per cent) of venues that used to operate under the 'two in a bar rule', around 70 per cent now have live music licences'. But the first MORI survey included a large proportion of 'Members Clubs and Associations', 21% in fact, that were exempt from any required to hold a public entertainment licence. Asking them whether they operated under the 'two in a bar rule' was always irrelevant. This suggests not only that the original 7% was a significant underestimate, but the 70% is also inaccurate.

DCMS has, this time, published the full Ipsos-MORI survey report alongside today's press release. You can download the PDF files using the link below - but beware: there are about 150 pages to read:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Publications/archive_2004/live_music_in_england_wales.htm

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 08:30 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

'The Licensing Act has had a damaging influence on live music in pubs and public places, according to Feargal Sharkey, former pop musician and now chairman of the Government's Music Forum.

'Speaking at the Institute of Licensing's conference in Brighton last week [20-22 November 2006], Sharkey said that legal uncertainties over whether music was "incidental" and therefore required no licence meant events were being scrapped unnecessarily.

'He added that local authorities had been too quick to insist pubs install noise limiters. Nor have local authorities been helpful in explaining their decisions, he said. "We had to use the Freedom of Information Act to get information out of some of them."

'He also queried why local authority websites are designed with "Making An Objection" buttons but not ones saying "In Favour".

'The Music Forum's report is due in January.'

From the Morning Advertiser 30 November 2006 under the headline 'Sharkey slates Act's impact'.
Go to: http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/ and type 'Sharkey' into the search field.

Or try:
http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=24707&linkedfrom=search&from=&to=&keywords=®ions=¤tpage=0

As far as I know this has gone unreported in the mainstream media to date.
My thanks to live music campaigner Dave Eyre for drawing this to my attention. HB

AND

It has just been brought to my attention that a week before the Morning Advertiser report ('Feargal slates Act's impact'), The Publican, a rival licensed trade paper, published this radically different take on Feargal's speech:

'Councils praised over handling of music' - 23 November 2006
'Live Music Forum chief says local authorities have been "even-handed and professional"

'Former Undertones frontman Feargal Sharkey, who now heads a forum evaluating the impact of licensing reform on musicians, has sung the praises of local authorities.

'Speaking at the Institute of Licensing conference in Brighton, he said that the "widespread belief that the 2003 Licensing Act would damage the industry" had proved unfounded.

'"We can't find any evidence for the plague of locusts that was forecast," he said. "More than 95 per cent of local authorities have been even-handed and professional – and in some cases in difficult circumstances."

'There were exceptions, however. Some councils had systematically imposed unreasonable conditions on pubs wanting to stage live music, and others had refused applications following a single objection.

'"There are things happening that need to be flagged up and discussed," he said.

'The Live Music Forum will produce its full report early next year.'

See: http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=53503

I am making further enquiries in an effort to explain how these two reports were so different.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 06:04 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=413100&in_page_id=1770

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 06:00 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

Some councils are advising carol singers that if they sing secular Christmas songs in public, like Jingle Bells, they will need a temporary licence under the Licensing Act (£21 a time), but if they sing only 'religious' carols, the performance is exempt (under the exemption for entertainment incidental to a 'religious meeting' - Sch.1, para 9(a)).

When the Licensing Act came into force a year ago, most local authorities were too busy processing licence conversions and applications to bother with carol singing. Now the tide of paperwork has receded, carol singers in some parts of the country are facing more red tape and extra costs. Under the old legislation, entertainment on public land and performances to raise money for charity were exempt.

Note that collecting money in the street requires a permit from the council under different legislation.

Links to some recent press reports:
'Council enforce licence fee for band playing non-religious Jingle Bells'
Daily Mail, 27 October 2006
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=413100&in_page_id=1770

'Festive Cheer'
The Oswestry & Border Counties Advertiser (11 November):

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:syqi4kXEdPAJ:www.nwnnow.co.uk/titlesites2/detail.asp%3Fcatid%3D1%26officeid%3D4%26type%3D0+oswestry+carols+licence&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

Kirklees, by contrast, seems to have a more liberal approach (Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 10 November):
'Bands are free to hit the streets'
http://ichuddersfield.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_headline=bands-are-free-to-hit-the-streets&method=full&objectid=18076263&siteid=50060-name_page.html

AND

In my circular earlier this morning (Wed 29 November) about problems for carol singers, I should have made it clear that performances raising money for charity were exempt under the old entertainment licensing regime only if they were private.

My apologies for not making this clear.

The rule of thumb is that where performances of live music are public, a licence is probably required, irrespective of any fundraising or profit motive - unless one or more of the Act's exemptions apply. The exemptions include entertainment provided in places of public religious worship.

For the exemptions in detail see Licensing Act 2003, s.173 'Activities in certain locations not licensable':
http://wwwopsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/30017--j.htm#173

And Schedule 1, Part 2, 'Exemptions', paras 5 - 12
< href=http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/30017--l.htm#sch1pt2>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/30017--l.htm#sch1pt2

Anyone planning a public carol singing event somewhere other than in a church should first check with the licensing department of their local authority about possible entertainment licence implications.

AND

It seems the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) is very concerned about local authority interpretation of the Licensing Act and carol singing.

A source within a local authority has just drawn my attention to DCMS advice, published on 24 November 2006 on the LACORS website. LACORS (Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services) is part of the Local Government Association: http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=15022

The DCMS advice includes the following:

'If a carol service is organised, advertised and provided for an audience there would seem to be little doubt that this would be licensable. However, a group of carol singers (players) outside a shop could be construed as incidental to the activity of people going about shopping and therefore exempt from the requirement for a licence. It would make no difference whether or not they were seeking voluntary contributions to charity from passers by.   This is different from a scenario where a shopping centre or individual business has organised a carol performance for an audience in a shopping mall which would require a licence or temporary event notice.   Under the 2003 Act, there is no distinction between the singing of religious or secular carols unless the carols were performed as part of a religious service or in a place of public religious worship, which would not then require a licence.' [My emphasis]

The ambiguity in the phrase 'could be construed as incidental' is surely significant. Local authorities are entitled to take a different view. As DCMS also states: 'It should be remembered, of course, that it is for licensing authorities to interpret the Act and to determine whether or not specific events need a licence.'

Whenever I have contacted local authorities and asked if I could busk in the street I have been told this requires a temporary event notice. But there is no material difference between busking and carol singing in this context.

The DCMS statement also reveals that a 12-week public consultation on proposed changes to the licensing guidance is imminent.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 11:43 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

The 'none in a bar rule' is one year old today.

In a lengthy DCMS press release yesterday, licensing minister Shaun Woodward said there were 'encouraging signs that the new licensing laws are having a positive impact' - but he was talking about alcohol. There was not one reference to live music.
See: http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Press_notices/archive_2006/DCMS148_06.htm

In 2005, former licensing minister James Purnell said he thought the Act would be much better for live music (Jeremy Vine interview, BBC Radio 2, Tue 19 July 2005). However, so far there is no evidence to back this claim, which may account for the absence of live music in yesterday's DCMS announcement. Last month DCMS postponed publication of MORI's latest live music research, which focuses on small venues, fuelling speculation that the picture is not rosy.

The first round of DCMS/MORI live music research in 2004 found that most bars and restaurants had no live music at all. Across all venue categories, including church and community halls and members clubs, the research found only 19% of venues had live music twice or more per month. It also found that the more licensees knew about the new Licensing Act the less likely they were to host live music in future.

It was local authorities who lobbied, successfully, for the 'none in a bar rule'. Now London councils are lobbying the government to introduce an extra annual licence fee of up to £125 just for having live music.

The rationale, set out in a London Councils report to the DCMS licence fee review panel in June this year, is that live music is 'a plausible source of objections'. Live music is the only entertainment identified. Other factors identified as justifying extra annual fees include the size of the venue, whether it is mainly for alcohol consumption, and how late it opens.

Complaints about live music, councils claim, can lead to extra costs for local authorities. ['Alternative Approaches to Licensing Fees', A paper by Local Government Futures Ltd, for the Association of London Government, June 2006, para 87. See London Councils 'fairer fees' press release, 19 September 2006:
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/doc.asp?doc=18262&cat=2423 Scroll down for the link to the alternative fees report.]

Curiously, there is no mention of complaints about recorded music, or disorder quite often associated with big screen sport in bars. And what about the phrase 'plausible source of complaint'? Does this mean they think live music may lead to extra enforcement costs, or is there hard evidence that it does?

Yesterday I asked several London councils whether they kept noise complaint data that discriminates between complaints about noisy people outside licensed premises, complaints about live music, and complaints about recorded music. Only Westminster and Camden responded promptly.

A spokesperson for Westminster said: 'Complaints about noise from music being played in licensed premises are not recorded separately but come under the classification "commercial noise" . Also, the genre of music is not recorded separately. However, comments about a particular premises can be recorded and this allows us to deal with establishments we believe may cause problems.'

Camden said their data did discriminate between complaints about live and recorded music - but could not produce statistics at short notice.

I then checked with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the department responsible for noise legislation. It told me: 'The only data that Defra keeps is on fixed penalty notices issued for night noise offence under the Noise Act 1996 - night noise from domestic premises between 11pm and 7am. This will shortly be extended to cover night noise from licensed premises.'

DEFRA recommended that I check the noise complaint data held by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH). But the CIEH data doesn't have a category for complaints about music, live or recorded. See: http://www.cieh.org/library/Knowledge/Environmental_protection/CIEH_annual_noise_complaint_statistics.pdf.

So, it would seem there are still no national statistics about noise complaints from live music or recorded music. Local data is likely to be patchy. In any case, the position is unlikely to have changed since 2003 when residents associations identified noisy people outside licensed premises as their major cause of concern. The final report of the DCMS licence review panel is imminent. Only when it is published will we know whether London Councils have succeeded in their bid to charge extra for having live music.

DCMS Licensing Fee Review Panel info:

http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Press_notices/archive_2005/dcms088_05.htm

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 09:53 AM

The Following from Hamish Birchall.

In terms, the current MU position on the Licensing Act is that to justify lobbying for reform they need hard evidence of a significant negative impact on members - and so far they haven't found it. Moreover, union officers have recently claimed that the UK is currently experiencing a 'widely acknowledged boom in live music'.

This position is untenable for the following reasons:

In 2000, the union published research into members' freelance work opportunities. The 60-page report, entitled 'Nice Work - If You Can Get it!', was based on 3,000 questionnaires completed by MU members in December 1998. It included a foreword by Mick Hucknall. The data analysis was done by academics then based at the University of Westminster: Norton York and Dave Laing. Former culture minister Janet Anderson was the star attraction at the MU's press launch held in the Wigmore Hall on 05 July 2000.

According to the report's Introduction, the research was commissioned in response to a motion passed at the MU's 1997 Conference which asked the Executive Committee: 'to initiate and fund research into the massive decline in freelance work opportunities of all kinds, both in the media and in all other areas of casual engagements, and asks the Executive Committee to formulate policies that will help musicians collectively to improve their employment prospects.'

Nice Work's Executive Summary included these key findings:

'The vast majority of musicians are freelance/self-employed'
'Only 18% earned more than £20,000 - the [then] national average wage' and
'Musicians' employment has been severely affected by legislation on Public Entertainment licences (which places financial penalties on premises employing more than two musicians).'

In the section quoting members' comments, p19, it noted: 'There is a clear desire among musicians that government reconsiders this whole issue to enable more venues to afford a PEL and to expand work opportunities for freelance musicians.' [My emphasis]

In this context, the current MU position on licensing seems perverse.
ENDS

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 12:01 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Malcolm Moss, Conservative MP for North East Cambridgeshire, yesterday tabled some questions for written answer concerning the DCMS delay in publishing the latest MORI live music research. See copies below.

Government departments should respond within 20 working days, but sometimes take longer. Mr Moss led on licensing for the Conservatives in the Commons when the Licensing Act was a Bill, 2002-3, and spoke strongly against the government's none-in-a-bar proposals. He remains a shadow minister on licensing, tourism and gambling.

Mr Moss's questions were prompted in part by a recent DCMS announcement that, along with certain DCMS staff, two members of the Live Music Forum (LMF), Feargal Sharkey and Musicians' Union General Secretary John Smith, will have privileged early sight of the draft DCMS/MORI research report before its likely publication in December.

Apparently, in the case of Sharkey and Smith, this is for the purpose of 'quality assuring... the supporting context and interpretation... and for identifying further analysis which draft report may raise.' See DCMS statement:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Research/research_by_dcms/live_music_exec_summary.htm

It is unclear why the rest of the LMF should be excluded from this process, or in what way Feargal Sharkey and John Smith are qualified to 'quality assure' the 'supporting context and interpretation' of the research data.

~ ~ ~

Commons - Questions for Written Answer Tuesday 31 October 2006:
37. Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, when the MORI research into live music commissioned by her Department will be published; and why the MORI presentation to the Live Music Forum on its research was cancelled. (98718)

See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmordbk1/61031w01.htm

Commons - Questions for Written Answer Wednesday 01 November 2006:
97. Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire) To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, when her Department will be making Ipsos-MORI's research on the impact of the new licensing legislation on live music available to the (a) Live Music Forum, (b) Musicians Union and (c) general public. (98941)

98. Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, for what reason certain members of the Live Music Forum previewed the Ipsos-MORI research recently commissioned by her Department; and what criteria were used in inviting such participation. (98942)

See: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmordbk2/61101o01.htm and scroll down.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Oct 06 - 09:48 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

In my circular of Wed 25 October I mentioned the government's Music Manifesto, which recommends a 'nationwide singing campaign', but is strangely silent about entertainment licensing implications.

Robin Bynoe, Senior Counsel at Charles Russell LLP, 8-10 New Fetter Lane, London EC4, got back to me with the following comments (reproduced with his permission):
'Interesting about the Music Manifesto. Marc Jaffrey, the 'Music Manifesto Champion', knows all about the effects of the Act on live music because I was at a meeting with him when it was discussed.

'Governments always introduce proposals for more singing when they want to divert money earmarked for instrumental teaching - in this case presumably in the direction of the Olympics, which are already hoovering up half the sponsorship money that previously went into arts and education. No expensive instruments needed. Mrs Thatcher first came up with that idea.'

Link to the Department for Education and Skills Music Manifesto press release of 18 October:
http://www.musicmanifesto.co.uk/news/details/Government-Welcomes-Manifesto-Recommendations/18

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 12:26 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

Yesterday I reported that the Musicians Union (MU) was doing follow-up research into the impact of the Licensing Act. Having now seen their latest survey questionnaire, I do not see how this alone could yield any robust conclusions about the effect of the Act on members' employment. There are several key problems:

1. Like its predecessor, the survey asks members about venues that have stopped or started promoting live music this year. As with the first survey, the union had subsequently to check members' claims. This involved contacting those members that had identified venues, and then contacting the venues themselves. It turned out that much of the information that members had originally provided was unreliable. The union will have to do that follow-up work again with this second survey.

2. The proportion of members who returned the first survey questionnaire was extremely low: about 3% nationally, and only a fraction of 1 per cent in the case of the London region. This is too low to allow statistically robust conclusions. The return rate of this second survey would have to improve significantly to change this.

3. In this second survey, respondents have to say 'yes' to further contact from the union. Many will not tick that box, further limiting the final sample size of those whose claims about venues that have started or stopped promoting live music as a result of the Act can be validated.

4. The second survey includes questions that may reveal members' perception of the Act's impact on live music, but that is not hard evidence of gigs lost or gained directly as a result of the Act.

It would have been better to combine research into members' perceptions of the Act with checks on the public licensing registers of a sample of local authorities. Public licensing registers should show all premises with a live music permission, and how many Temporary Event Notices for live music have been applied for and granted. This could have been compared with public entertainment licence data in the same area from previous years, which the councils will hold. There is still time for the union to do this before DCMS publishes the latest MORI live music findings.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 12:23 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has postponed publication of MORI's second round of live music research.

MORI was due to make a presentation to the Live Music Forum (LMF) about three weeks ago, but DCMS also cancelled this at short notice. A DCMS spokesperson explained:

'...our decision to postpone the presentation by MORI on the live music survey was based on our desire to ensure that the data were subject to suitable quality assurance procedures, compared with and contrasted to evidence from complementary data sources, and accompanied by adequate interpretation and commentary. This would not have been possible had we stuck to our original plan. Our decision was in accordance with the principles set out in the Protocol on Release Practices and, in particular, the condition that accompanying commentary and analysis should be judged to be fit for purpose.'

Could this be mandarin-speak for 'the data doesn't look good'? We should know in December, when DCMS now 'expect' to publish the latest MORI findings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 24 November the Licensing Act will have been in force for one year. Ministers said it would be 'much better' for live music, but evidence to support their optimism, particularly for live music as a secondary activity in pubs, bars and restaurants, has so far failed to materialise.

Without a live music permission on their new premises licence, pubs, bars and restaurants are restricted to 12 gigs a year under the Temporary Event Notice scheme, and 'incidental music'. Under the old regime such venues could host one or two musicians if and when desired without an entertainment licence. One key indicator of the merit, or otherwise, of ministers' claims will be the proportion that have a live music permission. My own view is that the national figure may be around 50%. DCMS could have obtained accurate data from local authorities months ago - but, if they have, they are keeping quiet about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite extensive enquiries of its 31,000 members, as far as I am aware the Musicians Union (MU) has yet to publish the name of any venue that has started live music for the first time as a result of the new Act. About a month ago it did publish the names of two venues in London that had increased their provision of live music, but omitted to mention several well-documented examples of gigs lost.

A second round of MU research, currently underway, may yet provide more evidence one way or the other. The MU has also so far failed to publish any evidence in support of its claim that live music is currently 'booming' in the UK, a claim made in their letter of 12 September rejecting a motion signed by 112 members. The motion called on the union to oppose the Licensing Act as it applied to casual gigs and members' employment in small venues (see my circular of 21 September 2006).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile...

Feargal Sharkey is putting the final touches to the LMF report on the Licensing Act, including recommendations for improvement. This is due for presentation to ministers by the end of the year. On 24 April, Feargal said of this report '... if [the] government accept all of our recommendations I will be slightly disappointed coz it might be an indication that we weren't thinking radically enough.' [BBC Radio 1 Live Music Debate]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Better Regulation Commission (BRC) is currently seeking clarification from DCMS on what the Department proposes to do in response to the BRC's criticisms of the Act and its implementation, including specifically the 'incidental music' exemption. On 10 April, the BRC published a report that was strongly critical of the Licensing Act's implementation:
http://www.brc.gov.uk/publications/licensingact2003.asp

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DCMS has almost completed its 'simplification plan', which may include proposals for cutting licensing red-tape - but don't hold your breath. See:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/working_with_us/better_regulations/

The plan should be published in November. All government departments must produce a simplification plan as part of the government's promise to cut red tape and unnecessary regulation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) has published a 'Music Manifesto'. Among other things it seeks to 'put singing back at the heart of all primary school musical activity through the creation of nationwide singing campaign leading up to the 2012 Olympics': See:
http://www.musicmanifesto.co.uk/news/details/Government-Welcomes-Manifesto-Recommendations/18788

The Manifesto doesn't mention the Licensing Act once, as far as I can tell using Adobe Acrobat search. This must be an oversight. Performance is a key part of music education, and where performance is public, the entertainment licensing implications must be considered.

Such an omission is all the more strange because Marc Jaffrey, Music Manifesto Champion, has been an observer at the LMF since its inception. He should be well aware that schools, and any other place that is not specifially exempt, must be licensed for public performances, and for private performances if these are raising money for charity, or otherwise seeking to make a profit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched its new fire safety legislation on 01 October: http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1162101

The relevance to entertainment licensing that it disapplies fire safety conditions imposed on premises licences. See Article 43 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051541.htm#43
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New powers should have come into force this month to control noisy licensed premises between 11pm and 7am. In June the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) announced that the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act would give local authorities the power to issue on-the-spot fines of up to £500 to those responsible:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2006/060628d.htm
Defra was unable to confirm today whether these powers had actually come into effect.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 07:54 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

This week's Stage newspaper (Wed 20 September 2006) reports that the Musicians Union has rejected a motion, signed by 112 members, to oppose the Licensing Act '...as far as it affects casual gigs and the associated employment of musicians in small venues'.

See: http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/14184/mu-criticised-for-refusing-to-challenge

Apparently the union fears that if it opposes the legislation ministers and civil servants will give it the cold shoulder.

But, in any case, the union now believes that there is a 'widely acknowledged boom in live music in the UK'.

This is very strange. Only two months ago MU General Secretary John Smith, reporting on the union's research into the impact of licensing changes, said: 'But we do believe that there is a marked drop in live music in smaller venues, especially the ones that previously benefitted from the "two or fewer performers" exemption under the old PEL system, and we are attempting to clarify the position in London'. ['Musician', Summer 2006 - the in-house journal for MU members].

The Autumn 2006 issue of the MU's 'London News' subsequently named only two London venues that they said benefitted from licensing changes - and one of these turned out to have been a long-standing band venue (the Old Blue Last pub). Several jazz venues where gigs had been lost or cancelled due to the new legislation went unreported.

The union seems to have forgotten that during the 1990s it lobbied both the Conservative and Labour governments for entertainment licensing reform, especially with regard to the 'two in a bar rule' as it applied to pubs and bars. Clearly, this was not done because live gigs in that sector were thriving. It was done because, since the early 1980s when local authorities took over entertainment licensing from magistrates, there were persistent reports from members and MU officers of band gigs lost due to rising licence costs and red tape. I am not aware of any evidence that new venues offset these losses. It would seem that this long decline must now be swept under the carpet.
ENDS

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Sep 06 - 01:19 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

As I reported yesterday, the latest Musicians Union newsletter for 12,000 London members ('London News', Autumn 2006), focused on two venues that had, they claimed, increased live music as a result of the new Licensing Act: the Old Blue Last pub in the East End, and the Phoenix Cinema in Finchley. Venues where jazz gigs had been lost as a result of the Act were not mentioned.

A quick check with the Phoenix Cinema confirmed the MU claim: as a result of being able to open later, the cinema has increased live music. So far so good.

However, it seems the MU got it badly wrong with the Old Blue Last.

In the newsletter, MU official Jo Laverty claimed: 'Since the [licensing] changes it is no longer just a pub but is now firmly on the map as one of London's more exciting live music venues. Many of you have fond memories (certainly some of us in the office do) of having played the Old Blue Last in previous years. Although formerly without a Public Entertainment Licence (PEL) the pub regularly utilised the previous 'two in a bar' exemption...'

Ms Laverty and other MU officers must have short memories. Hackney's licensing department confirmed this morning that the pub held a PEL continuously from at least 1995 to 2005, when it lapsed. So, if the pub was utilising the 'two in a bar' exemption at all, it would have only been for a few months between the lapse of the last PEL and 24 November 2005 when the new laws came into force.

Indeed, shortly after I sent out yesterday's update, two musicians told me that the Old Blue Last had been a thriving gig venue for bands (not just duos) for many years. In their own words, and with their permission:

'... The Old Blue Last has been a music venue for years: - as long as I've lived in London. It used to be one of the regular East End pubs that I played in in the 80s, and certainly had live bands (not just duos) until relatively recently.'
Gavin Scott

'Interestingly enough The Old Blue Last had a full music licence since it started doing music in the early 70s. I played there till about 3 years ago as an occasional weekend dep and the band size was usually a 6 or 7 piece, including singers, and everyone was on guaranteed pub rates (ie in the old days £40 per gig).'
Geoff Castle

The current owners of the pub made it clear to me yesterday that plans for the development of the venue began before they knew about the new licensing laws. It is also now clear that it has been a regular band venue for years. Whether or not the venue is now 'more exciting' may be debateable, but is nothing to do with the new Licensing Act.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 12:29 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

Readers of the latest Musicians Union newsletter for 12,000 London members ('London News', Autumn 2006) could be forgiven for concluding that MU research suggests that London venues have benefited from the new Licensing Act.

Strangely, however, there is no mention of several well-documented London jazz gigs lost, postponed or needlessly restricted as a result of the new law. These have been widely reported by MU members, including top UK-trumpeter Henry Lowther who lost a summer season of gigs at the Garden Cafe in Regents Park (royal parks are no longer exempt as they were under the old licensing regime). There was also the five-month postponement of the Monday night jazz at the Sir Richard Steele in Haverstock Hill (since reinstated, but with a new 'two in a bar' restriction), and weekly jazz sessions cancelled at La Brocca in Hampstead and the Old China Hand in Clerkenwell.

Under the heading 'Live', Jo Laverty, the MU Gigs and Venues official for London, reports on 'further research' into members' responses to the union's December 2005 licensing survey. 'It appeared that whilst perception of the Act was unfavourable, this was not substantiated in the feedback', she writes. 'Further research showed that of the venues mentioned only five had either faced problems or stopped promoting live music altogether as a direct result of the changes in licensing, whilst eight venues were mentioned as having started to promote live music since the new regime has taken effect.'

Ms Laverty acknowledges that only 64 London members actually returned survey forms to the union - just 0.5% of the London membership. But she does not mention that she was unable to contact at least 26 of the 64 survey respondents, and that the follow-up research is therefore based on an even smaller sample: about 0.3% of the London membership.

Nor does she provide any evidence to support members' claims that venues said to have started or stopped live music had actually done so as a result of the new law. My own enquiries suggest that, at best, up to three of the venues alleged to have started live music genuinely resulted from the change in licensing legislation. In any case, the sample size of London members is too small to draw statistically robust conclusions.

Having omitted well-documented examples of gigs lost due to the new law, it is ironic that Ms Laverty goes on to say: 'Whilst being keen to report the good news we do not wish to skim over those pubs and venues who are still experiencing frustrations and setbacks in applying for their [live music] variations'. However, she does confirm that a new 'State of the Nation' follow-up questionnaire is imminent, and invites feedback from venue owners and MU members 'so we can compile full and accurate information to feed back to the government': [e-mail]

Almost two thirds of the remaining page-long article is dedicated to reports of two venues where the provision of live music has apparently increased: the Old Blue Last pub in the East End, and the Phoenix Cinema in Finchley. Neither are new live music venues, but they are presented as examples of where the new entertainment licensing legislation has 'opened up new opportunities'.

As the article acknowledges, the Old Blue Last had already been hosting two-in-a-bar gigs. It was bought in 2004 by Vice Magazine, and now has live music '6 to 7 nights a week' (pop and rock). The cinema had held a 'live music licence for some time' but can now stay open till midnight Sunday to Thursday and 1am Friday and Saturday. This is hardly the 'explosion in live music' promised by ministers. But then the focus on 'positive stories' was recommended by Ms Laverty under the heading 'Follow up' in her original report (first produced in April).

Matt Elek, associate publisher at Vice Magazine, told me yesterday that it was a 'happy coincidence' that their development of the Old Blue Last as a live music venue occurred at the same time as the implementation of the new Licensing Act. He also said that the live music helped fill the pub on Wednesdays and Thursdays.

Bars without a live music permission will find, however, that getting an authorisation for live music now is likely to be more costly and bureaucratic than it was to get a public entertainment licence under the old licensing regime.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Sep 06 - 11:15 AM

The following is a link to a guide to licensees, on how to stage live music in pubs from The Publican.

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=6&storycode=52678

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:34 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Do you find the new live music law aggravating? Could you suggest ways to simplify the law 'without damaging the core aim of the regulation'?

If the answer is yes, then the Department for Culture, Media and Sport want to hear from you. Email: [e-mail]

DCMS will feed responses into their 'Simplicity Plan' - a set of proposals that the Department intends to publish in November which it believes 'will reduce the burden of legislation whilst maintaining its regulatory purpose'.

Those carefully chosen words tend to imply that whatever the law's regulatory purpose might be, it must be necessary. But where the new Licensing Act is concerned, this is not always the case.

Even now, in terms of the licensing objectives, the only reason DCMS gives for abolishing the 'two in a bar rule' is that it 'failed to protect local residents from noise nuisance'. But DCMS has never explained why separate noise legislation doesn't do the job properly.

In October, local authorities get extra powers to control noise in licensed premises between 11pm and 7am (Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act). That is in addition to their powers under the Environmental Protection Act to confiscate noisy equipment immediately (including musical instruments), and issue pre-emptive or reactive noise abatement notices, breach of which is a criminal offence. Noise abatement notices have been used by local authorities to stop noise from West End shows (Camden, 'Umoja', 2002) to lone buskers (Westminster City Council vs Bruno McDonald, also 2002).

Dave Eyre's excellent blog 'Folk music and licensing' has a very interesting entry on the noise issue today:
http://licensing-folkiedave.blogspot.com/

For more on the DCMS 'Simplicity Plan' see:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/working_with_us/better_regulations/ (scroll down to 'Calling for simplification measures')

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:23 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

The note advising that changes had been made to a minister's quote in the controversial DCMS MORI live music survey press release has now been restored:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Press_notices/archive_2004/dcms110_04.htm

The rider still fails to mention that the Market Research Society decision, which found the original quote misleading, included a recalculation of the live gig estimate for 'bars, clubs and restaurants' as 1.3 million.

As far as I am aware DCMS still claims that the 1.7m live gig estimate (which covers the survey's seven venue categories) indicates a 'flourishing' live music scene, even though MORI found that the majority of venues surveyed had no live music, and only 19% overall had two or more live gigs a month.

DCMS has refused two Freedom of Information Act requests to disclose their correspondence with MORI over the wording of this press release. They claim the exemption that applies where disclosure would inhibit 'free and frank discussions' between ministers and their advisers (s.36(2)(b)(i) and (ii)). But, in arguing this exemption, DCMS has to show that the public interest in keeping the information secret outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Based on their correspondence, I do not believe they have succeeded in this and I am therefore making a complaint to the Information Commissioner.

The controversial 'flourishing' claim has attracted the attention of many independent professional statisticians, one of whom has provided me with a statement in support of my submission to the Information Commissioner. In relation to the flourishing claim and the 1.7m live gig statistic it states: 'This is difficult to interpret as there is no objective definition of what constitutes a "flourishing music scene". While at first sight the figure of 1.7m gigs in the previous year sounds impressive, this is just 33,000 per week, compared with the estimated total population of over 53 million living in England and Wales in mid 2004'.

In short, more evidence that the claim was political.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 05:59 AM

This has implications far removed from concerns only about entertainment. But now a busker (or anyone) can effectivly be banned from just being on these streets by the licensee (the council).

Buskers have never had an outright right to play on the street. Under this new act, a busker would have far more problems if the streets were unlicenced.

Don't get me wrong, I do not like the new act and I do fear for live music. I'm not however going to knock attempts to make areas useable for live entertainment by licensing the streets.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 04:45 AM

I thought we had finished this Roger.

I take it you will not be supporting any moves on the part of your home town to license the streets and any open spaces on the grounds that they will then control them.

Yes you will support or no you will not support. It really is that easy.

can see no reason preventing councils who have obtained licensing permission for some of their streets - and now acting as the new licensees of these streets - from placing bans on individuals and activities in those streets.

Neither can I see any reason why they cannot do this. So on that point we are agreed.

But they always could. Do not agree that is true? Please would you be kind enough to explain the reason(s)why you believe that?

Aside from this other readers may care to look at my blog at http://licensing-folkiedave.blogspot.com/

All news of the idiocies of local councils or the DCMS gratefully received and published.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 02:12 AM

Few would argue that licensees have been able to ban members of the public they do not want from their licensed premises. And as long as the reasons for this are not on racial grounds etc - the reasons for this are up to them.

I can see no reason preventing councils who have obtained licensing permission for some of their streets - and now acting as the new licensees of these streets - from placing bans on individuals and activities in those streets.

This has implications far removed from concerns only about entertainment. But now a busker (or anyone) can effectivly be banned from just being on these streets by the licensee (the council).

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 02:40 PM

Need a Licensing Statement that is......

Read my blogspot - folk music and licensing..

http://licensing-folkiedave.blogspot.com/

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 09 Aug 06 - 02:29 PM

It turns out that Hull did not know the difference between the Gambling Act 2005 (for which they don't need one yet) and the Licensing Act 2003 - for which they do.

Bet you a drink they don't - bet you a drink they do.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 07:05 PM

It may be that despite my request saying "Licensing Act 2003, that Hull have got it mixed up with the Gambling Act. I will reserve judgement.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 08:30 AM

The same obviously applies to Oldham since there is nowhere licensed for them TO drink!!

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Billy Suggers
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 08:20 AM

.. this of course means that Hull Councillors and Officials are prohibited from the following activities until they can demonstrate Compliance with the Act:

1. Drinking

2. Being in receipt of any entertainment whatsoever in whatever form, forum or media (Except as organised by Mr R Murdoch)

.. does this account for the noticeably Glum Official Demeanor I wonder?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 07:43 AM

Readers of this thread bored by the squabbling between Roger and myself may fine a little light-hearted relief on my "blog".

Latest items include Oldham Council who haven't issued one single licence yet (!!!) and Hull Council who haven't yet published even a draft "Statement of Licensing Policy".

Both are in breach of the Licensing Act of course.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 12:43 PM

We?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 11:09 AM

Dave your determination to turn every small difference of opinion on this issue into a personal dispute is tiresome. It is also needlessly confusing when what is needed is to inform.

As you are of course fully aware - we do remain on the side of live music.

Sadly many of have found out that our council's machinery is not.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 04:42 AM

The problem - Guest Jon is that Roger cannot understand what you are saying because he has his own agenda and insists on sticking to it often flying in the face of common sense, and facts.

Roger - for the very last time.

What you can do or not do on the streets of Sheffield is not affected by those streets being licensed. It is affected by permission.

As for your prediction that they may charge for such a permisssion or place restrictions on what we can do there - well they always have charged for use of the streets and they always have restricted what you can do there so they may do so for this. We hand this control as part of democracy. If we do not like what they do we can elect a new council.

Are the streets of your town licensed for regulated entertainment?

Following your logic you would not want them to be licensed, thus restricting opportunities for music making on the streets of Weymouth.

At least your agenda is now in the open, stop music making on the streets.