Affected by The Licensing Act 2003

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 09:04 AM

It affects everybody and not always in a good way as you can see.
G

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Dick The Box
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 10:11 AM

I visited the Flying Goose Cafe in Beeston, Nottingham yesterday. Apparently they used to have occasional evening openings with live acoustic music from local bands. This no longer happens because the hassle and cost of obtaining a music license is not worthwhile. Another small informal venue bites the dust. Multiply this up across the country and the damage is incalculable.....

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: stallion
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 10:57 AM

Live acoustic music does not require a "music" licence, one merely ticks the box to say that you will have it. This is hammering on. Martin (Councillor), one of the guys I sing with, is chair of the Licensing committee, the interpretation is quite clear, 200 or less equals small premises, most pubs don't hold 200, if they have a larger space they would probably need amplification any way. Amplified music, no matter how small the premises, requires a licence. So, most of the sessions in our neck of the woods are ok, maybe one uses amps and mics, god knows why it can only cram 35 in at best!
One has to ask if Abbey road studios had the correct escape proc for members of the public, assuming that employees and clients were aware of the procedures. The Abbey Road gig could, with cynical eyes, be regarded as a publicity stunt, they could have done it anywhere, maybe they couldn't be hassled with moving equipment about.
I have to agree it is all very crap but then what went before it was crap. What remains to be seen is the vigour that the relevant authorities persue miscreants, my guess is if they don't give trouble vis-a-vis noise and agrivation then they may well be left alone. T
If we are going to make any real sense of this legislation we have go with it and not rail against it and carp. Maybe discussion groups with councillors (on Licensing committee's!) musicians and publicans, it might be advantageous to set up some unwritten ground rules and stick to them. Of course, there is no accounting for some officious beauracrat tw**s but rubbing them up the wrong way will not work!
From bitter experience I am aware that sometimes Landlords hide behind the legislation, reasons stated "Not everyone likes diddly-i-di music", spend to much time "playing and singing instead of drinking", and a real cracker was "takes up so much space it reduces my total retail area"
Ah well there is more but this will run and run won't it?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: pavane
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 11:39 AM

Would a prosecution of the BBC by Westminster Council help to highlight and publicise the idiocy of the act?

And IS the 'under 200 = small premises' actually in the act or just an interpretation? No-one else seems to have noticed it.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Barden of England
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 12:16 PM

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: stallion - PM
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 10:57 AM

Live acoustic music does not require a "music" licence, one merely ticks the box to say that you will have it. This is hammering on. Martin (Councillor), one of the guys I sing with, is chair of the Licensing committee, the interpretation is quite clear, 200 or less equals small premises, most pubs don't hold 200, if they have a larger space they would probably need amplification any way.

I'm sorry, but it shows how even the Chair of a Licensing Committe doesn't understand the 2003 Licensing Act. There is no such thing as a 'Music Licence' any more. There is now a 'Premises Licence', and the so called 'tick in the box' is to indicate that the premises wishes to provide 'Regulated Entertainment'. The performance of live music is 'Regulated Entertainment' under the act, so the assertion that acoustic music does not fall under this is wrong. However, once the Licensing Authority grants provision of regulated entertainment then things change a lot. You are quite right in that if the premises is licenced for 200 people or under, and where it's unamplified live music, then between the hours of 8am and 12 midnight any licensing authority imposed condition of the premises licence which relates to the provision of the music entertainment does not have effect. See section 177 of the Licensing Act 2003 which can be found here http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30017--j.htm#177

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:28 PM

One has to ask if Abbey road studios had the correct escape proc for members of the public, assuming that employees and clients were aware of the procedures. The Abbey Road gig could, with cynical eyes, be regarded as a publicity stunt, they could have done it anywhere, maybe they couldn't be hassled with moving equipment about.

Dare I suggest that if the correct Safety Procedures were not in place they would certainly have been prosecuted. But it would have nothing to do with licensing. It would have had a lot to do with Health and Safety.

I am sure the gig itself was a publicity stunt - I doubt if the breaking of the Licensing Act was. It seems clear to me that they just didn't understand it.

Even if the gig had been private with no members of the public present it would have been illegal. Abbey Road allowed the BBC to hire studios from them - provision of entertainment premises. They were provided for consideration and with a view to profit.

Such premises need a licence if there were anyone present in the form of an audience.

The relevant page of the act is here.

What would be really helpful would be if the Chair of Licensing explained to the DCMS just how convoluted this act can be.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Mr Happy
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 08:26 PM

'Even if the gig had been private with no members of the public present it would have been illegal. '


how does the law define 'members of the public ' ?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: pavane
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 01:56 AM

Is there anyone who ISN'T a member of the public?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 04:38 AM

I guess it is as follows.

If a recording studio has a number of workers (sound technicians for example) plus others there (the musos) then it is not licensable.

If some of them invite some of their mates in to watch a show - then it is a moot point whether it is licensable. Would need testing in court.

If - as on this occasion - the BBC give away tickets as prizes (having hired the studio anyway) then those ticket winners are members of the public. IMHO. There is no doubt this gig was illegal - all that happened was they decided not to prosecute.

But one thing is clear - it is muddy and it stops gigs from happening. It discriminates in favour of recorded music and it discriminates in favour of Large Screen TV. I reckon the crunch will come at World Cup time. If you said to a Minister - the wide screen TV can be played as loud as it can - the Minister would reply, correctly that Noise Regulations forbid it. For some reasons those same Noise Regulations are not taken into consideration when it comes to acoustic music?

If - to use an example of Kim Howells - six Japanese drummers turn up - to a pub without music permission, then they can't play inside. Remarkably - subject to other non-licensing laws - they can play on the back of a moving lorry - or they can play outside since busking is allowed. They can play if a group of Morris dancers are with them.

Now what would you call morris dancing to Japanese drums?

Dave

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:37 AM

Now if the lorry driver braked hard, it could cause local climate change. A nip in the air.......... I'll get back in me box.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: GUEST,Hamish Birchall
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 06:15 AM

This is a response mainly to Stallion's comment:
'If we are going to make any real sense of this legislation we have go with it and not rail against it and carp.'

Experts have spent the best part of three years trying to make sense of this legislation - and still they say it is complex and obscure. Isn't it time we agreed that this law is literally 'nonsense'?

Consider these quotes provided to me by licensing lawyers about the Coldplay gig:

'The regulation of entertainment is a particularly obscure area of a very complex statute. As a lawyer I applaud such lack of clarity; as a citizen I abhor it.'
Simon Mehigan QC, co-author 'Patersons Licensing Acts'

'Those parts of The Licensing Act 2003 which deal with the need for a licence in order to provide entertainment or entertainment facilities are probably the hardest part of the Act to understand. Even amongst lawyers specialising in licensing work there is still disagreement and uncertainty as to precisely what some of the provisions really mean and agreement and certainty will only be reached once the High Court is asked to interpret them as part of a Judicial Review application.'
Chris Hepher, licensing lawyer with over 20 years experience, Steeles, London

Finally, on the question of licensing and safety: Coldplay's gig at Abbey Road would have been legal if a Temporary Event Notice for a performance of live music had been in force (cost: £21).

Local authorities cannot impose public safety or noise conditions on a Temporary Event Notice.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 09:47 AM

As an example - let me say I have a letter from the Minister James Purnell - suggesting that if a pub's customers consist solely of particpants in a music session - then it would be legal.

Errr,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,really?

I wrote suggesting this was logically not eaxactly sensible. Guess what - same old bland letter from the DCMS.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: stallion
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:43 AM

Ah at last Hamish, the point I am trying to make, that it is such a mish mash of confusion that if we, and I mean performers and listeners, include ourselves in the dialogue then some good may come of it. we have to get included in a discussion on the working of the law in the way it was intended and not the way which it is being interpreted. I have tried to nail this one down with Martin who has recieved advice from central gov., they are all terrified to actually stand up and be counted.   a guide to local authorities for the act does exist but it is such a legal minefield that no one will publish it or even admit it exists, "don't quote me" is all I get.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 11:28 AM

Hi Stallion,

I am sure we are very much on the same side - so I really am not anxious to get into an argument with you at all. And whilst I cannot speak for Hamish, I am sure the same applies to him too.

Having said that I think we have to be a bit wary. There are those of us who spent hours campaigning for acoustic music when this bill was going through. There are people on this board who met the Minister at the time, Kim Howells. He took virtually no notice of anyone at all. He said one thing on the Mike Harding show and did another when his civil servants told him to. We got a concession on Morris Dancing. There is now virtually no chance of making any impression on the DCMS because their stock answer is "We have handed control to the local authorities - not my problem Guv." I know - I have had it myself.

And despite evidence to the contrary - they actually believe that it is working as intended.

So we do have to make an impression on the local authorities who are operating this. And yet as you say " they are all terrified to actually stand up and be counted. A guide to local authorities for the act does exist but it is such a legal minefield that no one will publish it or even admit it exists, "don't quote me" is all I get

So where do we go from here? I would love to hear other's thoughts on this. For my part I am still waiting for a reply from my local authority regarding the BBC - allegedly - breaking the law again. Only taken a month so far.

IMHO there will be two crunch points. One will start during the World Cup. My own thought is that if there are any incidents involving large screen TV's and hooliganism we should get writing to our local councillors until their letter boxes jam up. (As I have already pointed out there is little use writing to your MP's since the DCMS just pass the buck).

The second is Temporary Event Notices. These cannot have conditions imposed on them. The mind boggles when some of the cowboys catch onto this. Watch the government jump at the first "incident" where the police/L.A. have given a licence.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: pavane
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 12:13 PM

The way I understand it (for this and all other laws) there is no way within the constitution to get a (legally binding) judicial ruling without someone having to take a large personal risk.

Wouldn't it be nice if points of law could be decided WITHOUT someone needing to be charged with breaking it?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 01:31 PM

The problem with this one Pavane is that even we - the world's folkies - cannot break the law - it is the landlord/premises owner that's gets done!!

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: pavane
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 02:02 AM

Yes, that is a deliberate ploy of the politicians these days, the anti-martyr strategy. Make sure that if you break the law, it is someone else who suffers. They learned this lesson from the Poll Tax (Community charge).

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: GUEST,Hamish Birchall
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 02:25 AM

Actually musicians can be prosecuted under this law. Jamie Cullum was right first time (see The Times 13 Jan 06).

If you organise a licensable gig in an unlicensed venue, you are in the firing line. This is no different than the old regime.

In 2002 Westminster City Council prosecuted a singer who organised a regular gig in the basement of a hotel. She ran these as a private members music club. Westminster also prosecuted the hotel owner. Undercover council officers gained entry to the club on the night without the then 24 hour registration period. I know about this because I helped the singer, Lee Lindsay, prepare her some of her defence.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 04:02 AM

Westminster also prosecuted the hotel owner.

I think that is the crunch really. If it was guaranteed that the premises owner would not be prosecuted then it would be simple to organise an illegal gig.

Now that does give me an idea. If I could hire a council premises........

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: stallion
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 04:37 AM

It is tricky, by giving the responsibility for enforcing the act, as it has already been pointed out, to the L.A's. it deflects any criticism of the working of the Act away from the legislature that enacted it, if it's vague enough then they can't be blamed for the interpretation. However, this maybe a life line, lobbying councillors is far easier than lobbying M.P's., target the licensing committee, offer to "help" them through the Act and if needs be set up informal ground rules, self regulating. The fly in the ointment, of course, is that a significant majority of L.A's. are "executive" led, they rubber stamp what the paid officials "advise" them to do. What I fear is happening is that L.A's. that preside over areas who's main income is derived from tourism then the department responsible for promoting tourism has a big say in how the act is interpreted, this manifests itself in a more liberal interpretation of the Act when applied to music venues. Indeed, I think it has already been mentioned, if not in this thread then others, that some enlightened L.A's. are actually licensing several area's which they own to cover informal events.
What ever is happening it seems that enforcement and dissent are piece meal and disorganised. Maybe, just maybe, if we pooled our resources and picked off one Authority after another, even one Authoriy, then some coherent, unambigous policy might be arrived at. This, I fear, will run for much longer.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 05:36 AM

Does anyone know of any gigs, sessions or other live music events (paid or unpaid - any genre) _ in West Yorkshire_ that have ceased as a direct result of the change in legislation? Of of any that have started up as a direct result?

Tom

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 08:39 AM

if we pooled our resources and picked off one Authority after another, even one Authoriy, then some coherent, unambigous policy might be arrived at. This, I fear, will run for much longer.

Well I am currently in dialogue with Sheffield Council who on the whole have acted quite sensibly as far as I can tell.

My current argument is as follows. A group of us sang carols in Radio Sheffield studios on December 20th as part of a live broadcast. Since the studio was not licensed (but was open to the public who were indeed present), I asked the council what action they would take.

The Council's reply is that "the singing of carols in celebration of Christmas in the lead weeks before Christmas is a form of religious service which is exempted under the Act".

I have replied that the implication of this is that non-carols would have been prosecuted and thus treating carols on this basis is purely arbitrary discrimination.

What is remarkable is that the BBC have broken this law twice as far as I can see. Which shows how stupidly complex the act can be.

I shall keep you all updated you on this.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 09:16 AM

To make that absolutely clear.....

The full sentence is......At the moment and you will appreciate that the law may have to be tested in the courts at some stage in the future, my view is that a presumption must arise that the singing of carols......etc, etc.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 04:38 PM

Two points: to JB. If the licence contains fixed conditions, eg the provision of triple glazing or crash rails, you don't get a licnece until these are complied with. Only then can any remaining conditions (eg the provision of bouncers) be disapplied by the small premises exemption!

To others: The goverment does not want to listen. In the present political climate, listening and amending one's position in the light of reason is seen as political weakness and "flip-flopping". We will never ever achieve anything by reason. Constitutional lawyers are united that our democracy is no longer functional. We may achieve change by propaganda victory (if the press come massively on-side), or by massive force (Ireland, or Poll Tax). Remember, you will have to be bigger than Arthur Scargill's miners. Otherwise the only route to change is to change the government, and incredibly and regrettably, the other possibilities are worse still.

The time is coming for the second great constitutional change in the UK, because once again the people have no voice. The last time it took a civil war and about a quarter of the population dead. It led to the Bill of Rights in 1688 and the Act of Settlement in 1700.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 06:25 PM

The time is coming for the second great constitutional change in the UK, because once again the people have no voice. The last time it took a civil war and about a quarter of the population dead. It led to the Bill of Rights in 1688 and the Act of Settlement in 1700.

I sadly have to agree with Richard here. (Except for the deaths of course). Clearly common sense has no meaning any more.

Here is an extract from an email from the DCMS.

I cannot comment on whether individual events, such as one in Sheffield needs to be licensed, as much depends on the individual circumstances....... Licensing Authorities are best placed to say whether... [the event].... will be licensable in any given circumstance.

And here is the local authority talking about the same event:

If you think the law is in any way discriminatory this is a matter you should take up with the Secretary of State for Department of Media Culture and Sport, the sponsoring Government Department for the Licensing Act 2003.

Or let me put it another way......

The DCMS says contact the local authority - the authority says contact the DCMS. To think I used to be a member of the Labour Party. I hang my head in shame.

There is one small light at the end of the tunnel.......the curse of Dave on Tessa Jowell seems to be working - at least she and hubby may be having sleepless nights. And Tony Blair thinks God will be his judge. That's not quite good enough for me but it is getting close.

Another bright spot. The inaugural meeting of the local Curmudgeon Club met on Tuesday of last week. Tempura Prawns with Thai Rice and Chili Dip, Smoked Haddock and Poached Egg with roast and Duchesse Potatoes, Stuffed Aubergines and mixed fresh veg, and hot pineapple with Strawberry Ice Cream and raspberry coulis. Cost £5.15. Including service. (Total bill was £16.00 per head with tip - but we drank a lot of wine!!)

You will be pleased to know we complained. After all it is a Curmudgeon Club.

I'll get mi coat.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: stallion
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 07:39 AM

ok, I have had words with Martin, he is going to dig out all he has on the act, with all the guidance notes on the interpretation of the act, maybe we could host a chat room to discuss this on-line in real time. If anyone is interested either post or PM
Peter

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 07:36 AM

There is a good letter in the Observer today

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: stallion
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 07:52 AM

dave that club wi' t' fancy prawns looks good to me, can I join the club? I have winged a little bit on this thread, is that a qualification? Oh Martin, off the record, says " Of course there is always some officious little twat in a council who thinks the only thing worse than having trad music in one pub is to have it in two!" Now lets put this in perspective, the first time i ever heard Martin swear (and I have known him for over 25 years) was during the song "Stormy weather", he says knackers twice, it totally cracks me up, even having heard it several times, Martin swearing!
cheers
Peter

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: GUEST,Hamish Birchall
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 06:24 AM

This one's mainly for 'Dick the box' who reported the loss of live music at the Flying Goose Cafe, Beeston, on 01 March.

Manager Hilary Mason was happy to confirm this when I got through on the phone on 1st March. However, this week I have tried to get through again but there is no reply. Can Dick the box, or indeed anyone tell me whether this venue has temporarily closed?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Dick The Box
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:08 AM

Hamish,
The Flying Goose has not closed as far as I am aware. Although I have known Hilary as a friend of a friend for many years, that was the first visit I had made to the cafe! I will make enquiries and let you know.
Dick The Box

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 10:03 AM

Well I am currently in dialogue with Sheffield Council who on the whole have acted quite sensibly as far as I can tell.

The following is from my latest letter from the Assistant Chief Executive of Sheffield City Council.

You raise a number of interesting points in your letters which I have noted. However, it is for the Enforcing Authorities [the Council, the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service] to take a view on what contravenes the Act and ultimately the courts to decide on the presentation of evidence whether any alledged contravention results in a criminal conviction.

The views of Licensing Authorities will change over time as cases are decided before the courts. Please be assured that the City Council keep such matters under review.

It should be possible (if the Act were working as intended) for the public to currently know from the the Local Licensing Policy - if a specific activity (like an unpaid, non-amplified folk session) was licensable or not. This does not appear to be the case with mine or with Sheffield - is it the case with yours?

For in the unlikely event that any elected members on these Licensing Committees have considered such a question - there does not seem to be anyone who is prepared to provide the public with a simple answer to a simple question.   

The answer is to approach MPs and local councillors and to keep on until these answers are clearly provided in the words of Local Licensing Policies and do not remain only in the heads of individual council employees.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 11:56 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

Under pressure from the Statistics Commission, DCMS has finally published a breakdown of the 1.7m estimate for live gigs in venues in England and Wales 'whose main business is not live music'.

In a footnote, the Department also reveals a new error. The original estimate of 58,000 as the total number of pubs in the MORI live music survey should be 53,000. The original figure was almost 10% too high. The gig estimate for pubs should fall by about the same proportion. DCMS avoids this calculation, however, on the basis that the overall figure 'remains in the order of 1.7m'.

Here then are the latest gig estimates, which DCMS rounded to the nearest 1,000. The pub estimate is mine, taking into account the new 53,000 sample size. The DCMS estimate relating to the incorrect 58,000 pub sample is in square brackets.

Pubs/Inns: 578,000 [unadjusted DCMS estimate 647,000]
Hotels: 197,000
Restaurants:126,000
Small clubs: 58,000
Clubs & Associations: 468,000
Student Unions: 16,000
Church & Community Halls: 248,000

Estimated total = 1.7m approx

See: http://www.statscom.org.uk/correspondence_1-06-2.asp

Click on 'Letter 293' which follows the heading '23 Feb 06 - DCMS/MORI Live Music Survey - response to Hamish Birchall'. The letter is a PDF file for which you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader. NB: DCMS do not mention that the gig averages in their table are rounded to the nearest whole number, nor do they mention that the majority of pubs, hotels, small clubs and restaurants had no live music at all. 53% of all venues in the survey reported no live music. We do not know the proportion of pub gigs that were 'two in a bar'. Originally, the 'two in a bar rule' and its effect on gigs was a high priority at DCMS. MORI's original Technical Proposal to DCMS in 2004 stated: 'One key issue... will be the investigation of the effect of the two-in-a-bar rule on the musical offering'. Curiously, this 'key issue' was barely discussed in the survey report, published by DCMS on 08 October 2004.


DJs vs live music - an evolving definition
Did ambiguous definition of live music in the DCMS/MORI survey lead to the inclusion of DJs as live music? DCMS refused to publish a note on the above document to this effect, despite the fact that last December DCMS statisticians admitted that interviewees may have been confused by the live music definition.

The argument that 'there is no robust evidence on this one way or the other' is weak, and somewhat misleading. DCMS should publicly acknowledge their own agreement that the live music definition may have been confusing, and then quantify the possible error. If they cannot quantify it, they should also say so publicly.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that in the preparation of the survey the definition of live music was problematic. An email from MORI to DCMS dated 23 April 2004 includes this action point:

'Provide a succinct definition of 'live music' for the purpose of the interview'.

On 24 May 2004, MORI sent DCMS the first draft of the survey questionnaire. The opening question was simple:

'Q1. Have you staged any live music in your venue in the last 12 months?'

But for reasons that are not yet clear, this wasn't satisfactory. Various consultations were held with DCMS and the Live Music Forum. On 09 June a third draft appeared, with this new definition:

'Q1. Has there been any live music played or performed in your venue over the course of the past 12 months? By live music we mean [Live Music = Music performed in public by at least one person in real time]'

But this was to change again. The final draft, produced by MORI on 15 June 2004, read:

'Q1. Has there been any live music played or performed in your venue over the course of the past 12 months? By live music we mean music performed in public by at least one person in real time, that is, not pre-recorded?'

It would seem that DCMS or the LMF, or both, intended that combinations of live performer with recorded music were to be counted as live music. Whether a 'performer' could be a DJ or not is unclear. However, the fact that the Musicians' Union has for some time accepted scratch DJs as members may be a clue.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 12:01 PM

Tessa Jowell Sings

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 05:00 AM

I wonder if there is another statistical flaw in the DCMS figures.

The Students Union figure is based on the number of Student Unions affiliated to the NUS.

However there are only just over 200 universities and Institutes of Higher Education in the UK as a whole even where there are full time students. The DCMS figures suggest 620. This I assume is based on affiliated institutions which the NUS reports Currently around 700 students' unions across the country are affiliated to NUS, representing the interests of over 5 million students in Further and Higher education.

But the vast majority of theses are not places where full-time students go are they are FE colleges.

Now for years I worked at a FE college, one of the largest in the country and in that time it NEVER put on once a gig that would have fallen into the category of live music, despite a large performing arts department.

What the NUS there did do - and then only on a few occasions - was to hire a local night club. But then it was not a live band.

Any live bands that came out of the students played in small venues and then grew to bigger ones, or not as the case might be. They did not stage an event.

Can any other people confirm this in the case of FE colleges and would someone be kind enough to draw this letter to Hamish´s attention, since I am abroad at the moment and don´t have his email.

Folkiedave

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: BB
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 02:14 PM

Have just copied and posted it to him, Dave.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 02:41 PM

Tomorrow morning (Friday 18 March) BBC Radio 4's Today programme will feature a piece on Tessa Jowell's recent venture into song. Westminster Council have declared this to have been illegal.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 04:22 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

On 8th March, Tessa Jowell and other women MPs celebrated International Women's Day with a song, performed for the media's benefit in Victoria Tower Gardens, a public park next to the Houses of Parliament.

Earlier, the MPs had placed a bouquet of flowers beneath the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst, a campaigner for women's suffrage in the early 20th century. While the cause was undeniably just, it is worth noting that Mrs Pankhurst and her supporters pursued their cause through violent means including arson and attacks on politicians. It is tempting to speculate whether supporting such tactics today would amount to the 'glorification of terrorism'...

Anway, according to Westminster City Council, Tessa's singing was a licensable performance and no licence was in force. It would seem that a criminal offence has been committed. MPs will be relieved, however, that Westminster council has already decided not to prosecute.

This was covered in this morning's BBC R4 Today programme which can usually be downloaded from the BBC website by mid-morning:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/

Read a short account in today' Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2089859,00.html

View the BBC's coverage on 8th March:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/homepage/int/news/-/mediaselector/check/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi?redirect=fs.stm&nbram=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&news=1&nol_storyid=4787064

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 04:27 AM

The Times article.

Tessa gets licence to break the law

WE DID enjoy the sight, on International Women's Day, of Tessa Jowell and Co singing a timely rendition of the updated battle hymn, The Women are Marching On, in Victoria Tower Gardens in London. So brave. So stirring. So defiant. So illegal.

"Illegal?" says the press office at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Oh yes. Tricky thing, the Licensing Act. Since the new laws came into effect in November (ushered in by— who was it again? Ah yes, Tessa Jowell) a licence has been required for any "regulated entertainment", such as a "performance of live music". No licence, and you face a fine of up to £20,000. And this event didn't have one.

It was a memorial service, says the press office, after some time. It was exempt.

"No it wasn't," says a Westminster City Council spokesman. "Because there was live music, and because journalists were invited, there should have been a licence.

"But this was a one-off. We won't prosecute."

Just as well. £20,000 is a lot of money. Even for Ms Jowell.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 05:08 AM

PUBLICATION OF REPORT
FRIDAY 17 MARCH 2006 00.01AM
RE-LICENSING
The Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions will be publishing its Second Report of Session 2005-06 on Re-licensing on Friday 17 March 2006 at 00.01am.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmodpm/606/60602.htm

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 05:18 AM

One law for them, and thousands fo us, which they are allowed to break with impunity.

No change there, then!

Don T.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Tootler
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 05:23 AM

Once again, the law's an ass

Enough incidents like this and maybe the politicians might just, possibly, on the 30th of February, begin to realise that something needs changing in the law. There again, I think I saw some porcine aviators flying over just now

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 05:50 AM

Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister:
Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Second Report

----------------------------------------------------------------------

9 Conclusion


85. The Licensing Act 2003 gave the Department for Culture, Media and Sport the opportunity to simplify the licensing regime and reduce the regulatory burden on local authorities and licensees alike. The Act also aimed to provide residents with greater powers to object, and more involvement in the decision making process.

86. It is clear that, at present, the many problems encountered during the transition period are clouding the issue of whether the Act will be successful in these aims. It is unfortunate that so many errors have been made in the DCMS's planning during this time. There has been considerable stress on all parties, who were forced to deal with late regulations and guidance, inconsistent advice, unclear and irregular information and inadequate support. The ODPM failed local authorities: the department is there to support the workings of local authorities. We see little evidence that this was done during the transition period. Nor was action taken when direct appeals were made.

87. We hope that the DCMS review of guidance, and the Elton Review on fees will address many of the issues we have brought to the Government's attention. We regard the establishment of these reviews as a first step towards rectifying the problems inherent in the current system. The reviews should however seek to avoid imposing changes that will only cause further administrative burden, confusion or bad-feeling.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 05:39 AM

In other words we (proprietor=taxpayer) are paying for a bunch of incompetent civil servants and their pensions.

When Gordon Brown is busy taking his axe to the civil service let´s hope some of the people responsible for this b*ll**ks are in the line-up.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 09:29 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall

A few points to note before reading this transcript:

When questioned about Tessa's singing by the BBC and The Times last Thursday (16 March), DCMS initially claimed that the Act was about the application of 'common sense' and that no licence was required for 'live music that is incidental to a memorial service'. Later that afternoon, DCMS added another excuse: the event was private and not for profit.

But MPs had organised the performance well in advance and invited the press to record it. As such it was an event in itself, not incidental.

The BBC did not report any 'memorial service', they reported a 'celebration' and the singing. Indeed, in a Westminster Hall debate the next day, Linda Gilroy MP thanked the organisers, and called it 'a very celebratory event'. She made no reference to a 'memorial service'. In any case, it is hard to see that the laying of a bouquet beneath Emmeline Pankhurst's statue would qualify as such.

As for the private event claim, Victoria Tower Gardens is open to the public, and the new Licensing Act explicitly counts spectators as an audience.

Royal Parks had already submitted an application for a premises licence authorising entertainment, and this covers Victoria Tower Gardens. The application has been and continues to be advertised on the park railings, even though the closing date for representations was 1 March, a week before the MPs performance.

I understand 10 objections have been made, and these will have to be considered at public hearing. This will take place on 23 March - not sure where yet.

Westminster City Councillor Audrey Lewis implies that advertising a musical event is one of the legal reasons for licensing. In fact it is not a requirement under the Licensing Act. However, it appears to be one of the factors councils are using to assess whether a performance qualifies for the 'incidental music' exemption.

It would also appear that Westminster City Council is operating a policy of risk-based enforcement: no complaint, no action.

If this is possible, why is the pre-emptive criminalisation of unlicensed performances of this nature necessary at all?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tessa's illegal singing - BBC R4 Today - Fri 17 March 2006, 7.45am approx

Presenter, Sarah Montague: The Secretary of State for Culture, Tessa Jowell, has broken the law. Not just any law, but a law she introduced. Remember that sing-song to mark International Women's Day? Well, just in case you don't, here's a reminder:

Tessa Jowell and other women MPs singing to the tune of Battle Hymn of the Republic (note the revised lyrics): My eyes have seen the women in the Commons and the Lords, they have trampled down the prejudice that was so long ignored, they have [fades out]...

Sarah Montague: Well, that was sung in Victoria Tower Gardens which is a royal park. And if you plan a musical event in a royal park, then under the terms of the new Licensing Act you need a licence. This is councillor Audrey Lewis who has responsibility for such matters on Westminster City Council.

Audrey Lewis: Well, technically to have a performance which was advertised of singing in a royal park, which is a premise under the terms of the new Licensing Act, was an offence because it has no licence. We would not, however, expect to prosecute because nobody has complained about it. It wasn't a question of law and disorder breaking out, or indeed public nuisance. Having said which, they've had a first offence. If they wanted to do this quite regularly they've had, they would get a warning and er I think that it's ironic that it's not only Tessa Jowell's law, it's Tessa Jowell in being involved in it, and of course it's Tessa Jowell who's responsible for the royal parks. So all in all [laughs] Tessa Jowell, I think probably knows by now that she can't do it again.

Sarah Montague: That was councillor Audrey Lewis. Well here with me in the studio is Hamish Birchall who's a musician who's been campaigning against the law. What do make of this?

Hamish Birchall: Well I think it's a superb example of the absurdity of the legislation, and er, this was discussed on internet chat groups just after the event happened. And I thought it worth looking into it a little bit more deeply, and um I know the law fairly well having worked on the Bill when it was a Bill. So I approached Westminster council, outlined the circumstances of the event and asked whether an offence had been committed.

Sarah Montague: You didn't complain, and that's one of the reasons that they said look nobody complained, it wasn't a case of law and disorder breaking out or a public nuisance.

Hamish Birchall: Oh no, I think it's absurd that people should face a potential criminal prosecution for something like this, but I think it does serve to illustrate the absurdity of the law.

Sarah Montague: Do you think there are many cases where sing-songs are not happening because of the law?

Hamish Birchall: I think people are a bit more wary of it, because erm although the government guidance is that, you know, spontaneous singing is exempt, actually there is very little spontaneous singing really in pubs. And in fact today, St Patrick's Day, there'd be a lot of planned singing in pubs and a lot of that will probably be illegal.

Sarah Montague: And so, there's, and there's do you think there is less singing going on as a result of the law?

Hamish Birchall: Probably not [laughs]...

Sarah Montague: [laughs] Because people will just get around it...

Hamish Birchall: It may not after this. It may not. This may discourage people.

Sarah Montague: Are you still campaigning to try to change the law?

Hamish Birchall: Yes.

Sarah Montague: But it's difficult to see what effect it is having.

Hamish Birchall: Erm, no. I've already er learned of three weekly jazz gigs in London that have been cancelled as a result of the new law.

Sarah Montague: Because they didn't have the appropriate licence?

Hamish Birchall: Well, because previously you didn't have to have a licence for one or two musicians and they were told that in fact they could carry this forward into the new regime, but you can't. Even if you provide one musician you'd need a new licence.

Sarah Montague: Ah, very interesting. Hamish Birchall thank you very much.

ENDS

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: pavane
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 09:52 AM

Key questions:

Firstly - who organised the event - NOT Tessa Jowell, I assume.
Therefore she is not the one who would be prosecuted.

Is the ORGANISER aware of the potential 20k fine?

If not, would she (I presume it is a SHE) still have done it if she knew? Probably NOT, I think.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 06:32 AM

I was watching BBC breakfast morning news this AM - it comes on at a civilised hour in Spain because we are an hour later (!!).

There was a piece about how music was being used to entertain patients at the Royal Hospital London, a harp and a guitar. It got their blood pressure down and was clearly therapeutic.

Now I would like to suggest that his could be regarded as regulated entertainment and thus licensable, and I do remember cases like these being put forward asthe sort of stupid thing that could happen if the bill went through in the form it eventually did.

There is an easy get-out for the hospital/licensing authority, (We was not entertaining the patients guv, we was treating them) but once again the absurdities of this act are exposed.

Anyone else see it?

Dave

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: stallion
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 07:59 AM

Ha HA,
Guess what, the reason I sing is to lower my blood pressure! True, my doctor was trying to rehab me after having six months off with stress and high blood pressure, "sing at least once, if not twice, a week". The missus was frothing about it, he then said to her "Do you want him dead". To wit I now sing every friday night, sacrosanct, so we are not entertaining but attending mass therapy classes like yoga and step aerobics, is that covered by the act?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 08:48 AM

Before all this licensing rubbish descended on me - over 5 years ago now - I was a calm and reasonably healthy soul who did not get stressed about very much. As a result of trying to make sense of all this I have now developed high blood prssure.

I have taken my pills and I am set for yet another meeting at 4.pm with my local officers. Wish me luck.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: pavane
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 06:00 AM

All music provided in hospitals, nursing homes and similar must presumably be licensable because there are always visitors, and also the performers usually get paid.

Similarly for exercise classes, I suspect

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 06:37 AM

The meeting was pretty much the struggle I expected.

The question was if the session prevented by this council under the old legislation could re-start without entertainment permission under the new.

A fairly simple question you would think. In fact this was the second meeting with the council's second-in-command where I had asked this question. I did not mangage to get an answer at the first meeting and I did not get an answer at this meeting. However, after having to be very forceful, I eventually managed to ensure that I would be getting an answer - when the employees of the licensing section are asked what the answer is................

I will also be told the number of the borough's pubs that are now without any entertainment permission.

The ignorance of the many changes resulting from the new legislation was as usual, pretty staggering and at one point both the officer and the councillor were urging me to just go ahead with organising a session in a pub without licensing permission as I would not be the one subject to prosecution............

Not too sure what chance they thought I had of persuading a licensee to re-start, when this council had already threatened to prosecute them for continuing under the old legislation.   

Watch this space for the answer - but don't hold your breath or expect too much when this letter arrives.