Affected by The Licensing Act 2003

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 29 Jul 06 - 08:45 AM

I am not a lawyer and do not purport to give legal advice (disclaimer)
In my understanding and the DSMS website bears this out - it is not compulsory.

The relevant section of the guidance is section 3.59 of the Guidance and suggests that Local Authorities "give regard to licensing open spaces".

Sheffield for instance has licensed the whole of the city as bounded by the inner ring road, an area about a mile across. OTher LA's have done similar things.

But it is not compulsory.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Jul 06 - 02:08 PM

The following from Hamish Birchall

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) has decided that the street dancers, or 'masqueraders', accompanying the Notting Hill Carnival floats will qualify for the Licensing Act's morris dancing exemption. The wording allows for 'any dancing of a similar nature'.

Had RBKC not adopted this interpretation, carnival organisers would have faced entertainment licence fees of up to £64,000. Extra fees apply where attendance exceeds 5,000. There is no exemption for 'incidental dancing'. As it is, for the first time the carnival's 30-40 'static sound systems' will require premises licences or Temporary Events Notices. Fees for these are not expected to exceed £2,000.

If RBKC has adopted a liberal reading of the morris exemption, other local authorities are taking a different view.

According to this report in the online Wiltshire Times, Trowbridge has already banned majorettes (unless licensed), and Warminster looks set to follow:
http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/trowbridgenews/display.var.843961.0.major_upset_for_troupe.php

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Jul 06 - 02:29 PM

Unless some legal challenge is mounted and some court is asked to decide - despite all the fine sounding claims made by the Government's various ministers for it - whether these cultural activities are prevented by the Licensing Act 2003 in England and Wales - is simply going to be a matter of pot-luck as to which council you happen to live under............

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 29 Jul 06 - 02:45 PM

West Wiltshire Council like many others are clearly confused by the Act.

They had a couple of options for the majorettes. 1) Treat is as similar to Morris dancing - thus it is exempt. That's what they have done for the Notting Hill Carnival. 2) License the streets themselves - no cost - as Sheffield have done. That is what the government advises councils to do.

What is perhaps more important is that "A spokesman for West Wiltshire District Council confirmed carnivals do not need licensing under the act if the ratio of the number of people on foot to the number of floats is less than 50 per cent, but said it is up to individual committees how they meet the requirements". Apart from the fact that this is patent nonsense (think about it, a carnival with 50 floats (very large) could only have 24 people alongside it before it needed a license, it is simply untrue. There is no such clause in the Act nor was there in any previous Act and nor is there in the Guidance to the Act.

They - West Wiltshire Council - have made this "law" up. It is sheer round spherical objects. The Licensing Act 2003 allows them to do this and the DCMS encourages them to do so. The only way to challenge it is through the courts and I doubt if the Majorettes have sufficient backing to do so. (Actually they really ought to go ahead and let the Council dare to prosecute a group of young people girls).

But for certain if you live in the area make a stink with your MP and your local councillor and start by asking which section of the Act/Guidance this "50% rule" appears.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 04:22 AM

In my last post there was a small typo prosecute a group of young people girls should have read people of course.

I decided to write to West Wiltshire Council and ask where they got the idea about the "number of people on foot in a carnival in ratio to floats" from.

If anyone else would like to make a point or a protest - perhaps they would like to email: [e-mail]

I have also written a letter to the newspaper that first published the story.

Clearly a grumpy old man with too much time on his hands.

I'll get mi coat.


Dave

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Bonecruncher
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 09:41 PM

Thanks to Folkiedave aand The Shambles for their advice.
Colyn.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 03:07 AM

I have taken this matter up with our local Councillor and am still awaiting a reply after a fortnight!
Colyn.

I have been trying this route for over 6 years now - so you may have to learn how to wait a little bit longer than two weeks. *Smiles*

But it would be useful if you could keep us informed of your progress with West Wilts.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 03:21 AM

I have had not time yet to read West Wilts Statement of Local Licensing Policy - to see if there is any mention of the pemitted ratio of walker/dancers to floats. But it is in PDF form on the following...........

http://www.westwiltshire.gov.uk/index/business/business-street-trading-licences/licensingact2003/licensingact2003-licensingpolicy.htm

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 07:45 AM

I have read the Licensing Statement. Nothing better to do, grumpy old man, retired and obsessive.

Section 2.38 says

"This policy seeks to apply restrictions only where they are necessary, proportionate and reasoanable for promoting the ofour licensing objectives. This policy recognises that unecessary conditions coupld place substantial and reasonable financial burdens on those providing cultural entertainment.
If the Council has, or receives evidence that this policy may be signiifcantly deterring cultural activity, in particular live music,dancing or theatre, then a review of this policy will be considered."

Plain enoughI would have thought.

The council is going against its own policy.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 10:27 AM

And the The Act's Statutory Guidance states -

Cultural strategies
3.47

Where there is any indication that such events are being deterred by licensing requirements, statements of licensing policy should be re-visited with a view to investigating how the situation might be reversed. Broader cultural activities and entertainment may also be affected.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 04:52 AM

I have been thinking of starting a "blog" for ages and decided this would be as good as a time as any.

If anyone has any good stories which they think may fit into this blog, feel free to pass them on to me via a PM.

Take a look, and all comments gratefully via the "comments section" or via a PM gratefully received. This includes alterations to my spelling, grammar, and any typos you spot.

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

Dave Eyre

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 05:15 AM

Sorry, that should have read - here

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 11:19 AM

The following from Hamish Birchall.

In a press release entitled 'Red tape in danger of throttling sport', published on 18 July, the Central Council of Physical Recreation (CCPR) cited high licensing costs among its key concerns:

'Despite government assurances that sports clubs would only be marginally affected by the [Licensing] Act, some clubs are reporting costs of more than £1000 to get a licence. Some are even paying licensing costs at levels comparable to those incurred by pubs and wine bars.'

See: http://www.ccpr.org.uk/index.cfm and scroll down

Under the old licensing regime, an alcohol licence cost £30 and lasted three years. Annual entertainment licence fees varied considerably, although in rural areas they were often lower than new the annual 'inspection' fees for medium- to large-size bars. See DCMS fees tables:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/alcohol_and_entertainment/fee_levels.htm

But sports clubs could face more costs if they provide dancing entertainment on the sports ground or pitch itself. Many, if not most, sports grounds will not have a premises licence that authorises music and dancing on the playing area. This problem came to light following reports of a Chinese Lion dance at Sheffield United's ground during half-time at a match on 30 April 2006:
http://www.sufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/MatchAction/0,,10418~823895,00.html

The pitch was not licensed for dancing and Sheffield City Council was uncertain whether the Act's morris dancing exemption would apply. On 9 May the Council announced that it was advising not just Sheffield United, but all sports grounds to vary their licences if they wished to have on-pitch entertainment. Sheffield United subsequently made a variation application. The fee was £635. Additional costs include 28 days advertisement in the local press and probably legal fees.

The Council is not claiming eye-watering additional charges set out under the Fees Regulations where a premises capacity exceeds 5,000. The basis of the Council position is a convoluted exemption that applies if the premises is 'a structure which is not a vehicle, vessel, or moveable structure; and has been constructed or structurally altered for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of enabling- (i) the premises to be used for the licensable activities the applicant proposes the licence should authorise...'. [see The Licensing Act 2003 (Fees) Regulations 2005, Part 2, Premises Licences, para 4(5): http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050079.htm].

This raises the sort of questions which keep lawyers in business for years: is a football pitch 'a structure'? Even if it is, could it be said that it was 'constructed or structurally altered' in any sense to enable on-pitch dancing? Definitive answers are unlikely in the short term, so the Council's position is arguable, if unproven.

According to the Football Licensing Authority (FLA), 40-50% of its 92 premiership or football league grounds have 'cheer-leading troupes' for some or all of their matches. Majorette-style dancers are also popular at Rugby Super League games - the same dancing that was deemed licensable by Trowbridge Carnival Committee last month, and which led to the 'banning' of a local majorette troupe:
http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/trowbridgenews/display.var.843961.0.major_upset_for_troupe.php

By contrast, the Notting Hill Carnival street dancers have been granted the morris or similar dancing exemption by the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (RBKC). The exemption only allows unamplified live music to accompany the dancers, however. If the dancers are accompanied by recorded music, then a premises licence or Temporary Event Notice is required.

But what if the recorded music is on a moving vehicle - entertainment on moving vehicles is exempt, after all.

'My advice to the dancers would be "don't dance to the beat of the recorded music"', said one expert licensing lawyer, tongue in cheek of course.
ENDS

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 10:47 AM

The following (today) from West Wiltshire District Council.

Thank you for your recent email concerning the above and in particular participation by majorettes. Please find attached to this email our guidance on the need for the licensing of carnivals. This was produced after taking legal advice.

There is no doubt that musical entertainment or dancing on foot is licensable if it takes place in isolation. Majorettes, and others fall into this group. The guidance revolves around at what point does the licensable activity become 'incidental' to other non licensable activities such as entertainment on a float or someone simply walking in fancy dress.

This is where the 50% comes from. We issued this guidance in April of this year following several enquiries and it has not changed. The recent article in the local paper said that it was the ratio of people, which was incorrect. As you will see from the guidance it is the ratio of entertainment groups, so a majorette 'team' will count as one. Following the newspaper article we have again sent the guidance to all Town Councils in our district to pass on to their carnival committees.

West Wiltshire District Council
Licensing Act 2003
Carnivals
The requirement to licence carnivals

Having taken into account that:
• entertainment on moving vehicles is exempt
• not all of the entertainment on foot would be licensable
• some of the musical entertainment may be incidental to other
entertainment
the following advice to carnival organisers is provided.

Carnivals will only be licensable if:
• The number of entrants that are on foot and providing regulated
entertainment is more than half of the total number of entrants.

The definition of entrant includes a vehicle, a float, an identifiable separate
group of people or an individual providing entertainment of any description
and authorised by the organisers.

• Two distinctly different marching bands, playing different music would
count as two entrants
• All persons on a single vehicle or float would be classed as one entrant
• A collection of people walking in costume would be classed as one
entrant.
• A marching band with majorettes would be classed as one entrant
• An individual robotic dancer, on foot and not associated with any other
group, would be classed as one entrant.

The definitions of regulated entertainment and the list of exemptions, from the
legislation, is attached.
ENDS

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

It seems the council have ignored the DCMS guidelines and made up their own.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 11:37 AM

It seems the council have ignored the DCMS guidelines and made up their own.

Yes I have responded to them and pointed that out.

I think this is it - but it less about the objects of the Licensing Act 2003 than an attempt at social engineering:-

If there are 10 entrants in total and 6 are exempt floats. No licenced required for the whole carnival.

The other way around and a licence is required.

It makes a sort of sense to a certain mind-set. But it is bit hard if one group of majorettes has to be left out because their addition would mean the organisers would have to pay. It is hardly their fault as they have no control over the number of floats entered.

Perhaps it is simply the council's way of boosting the number of floats entered to these canivals? If a majorette's mum wants to stop the tears and ensure their group is not excluded - they can always enter a float to change the ratio............

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 02:57 PM

I had the same reply as Roger - my reply to the council can be viewed on my blog here

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 11:50 AM

They had a couple of options for the majorettes. 1) Treat is as similar to Morris dancing - thus it is exempt. That's what they have done for the Notting Hill Carnival. 2) License the streets themselves - no cost - as Sheffield have done. That is what the government advises councils to do.

Unless I am missing something - I can't see that carnivals present any real licensing problems to any council who have a real will to enable them. The floats are exempt - any marching band can be exempt as live music that is incidental to the floats and the Morris exemption can cover any dancing that is not on the floats.

This way - there is no licensing section involement at all. Which must be good thing.

I am less happy with Council controlled Premises Licence entertainment permission for the streets themselves as any solution to anything much. I fear that it is just a start of more restrictions.

For I am quite sure that Shieffield's licensing section will have similar small-print 'guidance' to that for carnivals produced by West Wilts - for when and what can take place on the places they hold entertainment permission for.

Perhaps Dave you can establish if this is the case? What for example would be the situation for anyone now just turning up and playing or dancing on areas where these permissions apply?

It would be nice to think that anyone at any time could turn up and entertain where this permission now applies - but I suspect that it will not now be quite that easy in Sheffield. I hope I am wrong.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 02:34 PM

"What for example would be the situation for anyone now just turning up and playing or dancing on areas where these permissions apply?"

I haven't established this and with good reason. What I can say is that you need permisssion to turn up and play. Nothing has changed - you always did. You can't turn up and play on the streets of Sheffield without permission any more than you can in a pub. Not before the Licensing Act and not after.As far as I am aware this applies to anywhere.

However, some people do just turn up and play. The Chilean/Peruvian bands with amplification do so, buskers do so, and so do all sorts of street performers including morris dancers. Sheffield has been tolerant of this sort of thing for many years. To be honest I don't see this changing.

There is no doubt in my own mind that the licensing people went down this route of licensing the whole of the city centre because they were fed up of being lobbied about events that were taking place in that area without licences and then having to explain to people who contacted them, why their own Outdoor Events Team had failed to apply for one. The effect of this is for it to apply to anyone. They might prosecute the Chilean Folk Groups for playing - but not using the Licensing Act they can't.

The effect has been for example that the Lord Mayor's Parade could go ahead without any further permissions, for the streets themselves are licensed not just pavements and pedestrian areas. That is why I suggested it as a solution to West Wiltshire's problems.

What can be worrying is that I believe other local authorities are charging for using areas which have been given permissions.

I have no chance to establish the full facts of this and as we are in the middle of the Folk Festival season my time is limited and so is those of my correspondents. Before publishing anything along those lines I need to check the facts. Once these are known and checked I shall publish the results in my "blog" here .
x

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 02:42 PM

Sorry that "x" on the last post was not me blowing kisses but a typo.

For I am quite sure that Sheffield's licensing section will have similar small-print 'guidance' to that for carnivals produced by West Wilts - for when and what can take place on the places they hold entertainment permission for.

Well I am not sure they have. This is a major conurbation - one of the largest in the UK. Believe me they have many more problems concerning the Licensing Act than having to worry about "regulated entertainment".

So far they have shown a liberated attitude towards most things, refusing to prosecute when they could easily have done so. They have been very tolerant about garden fetes for example - one I certainly know about was told to go ahead when it would have been just as easy to tell them they would need a licence.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 07:00 AM

The effect has been for example that the Lord Mayor's Parade could go ahead without any further permissions, for the streets themselves are licensed not just pavements and pedestrian areas.

There have always been bye-laws and atempts at local licensing and restrictions on busking etc - I am more interested in any that have been introduced as a result of any Council's taking the route suggested in the Act's Statutory Guidance. That of them obtaining Premises Licensing Permission for public places.

Could you and I just go ahead and orgainise our own carnival parade on these (licensed) streets?

And what would be the situation if we were to do this on (what I assume to be the the majority of) Sheffield's streets that are not licensed by Sheffield Council?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 08:54 AM

Could you and I just go ahead and organise our own carnival parade on these (licensed) streets?

No Roger we couldn't. We never could and the Licensing Act 2003 has made no difference to this. We never could and we can't now because we need permission - in the same way as we always have. Once we have permission we can.

If there is a parade in Sheffield - let's say a protest parade against the Licencing Act - and we hire a brass band - then so long as we have permission to parade no-one could be prosecuted under the Licensing Act. The streets are licensed. In a very wide area where sensible people would want to have the parade - to maximise the parade's impact. It covers all the pedestrian precincts in town and when they did this they also licensed numerous parks for the same reason, to make it dead easy for people to have "regulated entertainment".

And what would be the situation if we were to do this on (what I assume to be the the majority of) Sheffield's streets that are not licensed by Sheffield Council?

Well, for many parts of the City of Sheffield especially outside he ring road, you wouldn't want to have a parade without permission. You would be run over by traffic. (I speak as one who once took part in a Parade down O'Connell St. Dublin with no traffic cancelled. Not an experience I would like to repeat).

But I have taken part in the Lord Mayor's parade for the last fifteen years or so in Sheffield. I have also been on lots of protest marches over a period of forty years - I have never known one that took place outside this area.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Snuffy
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 09:14 AM

Could you and I just go ahead and organise our own carnival parade on these (licensed) streets?

Could you and I just go ahead and orgainise our own event in the (licensed) Royal Albert Hall? Or in my (licensed) village pub?

The answer in all cases is the same - not without the permission of the owner. The fact that the "premises" are licensed does not give the right to all and sundry to put on entertainment there without the knowledge or consent of the rightful occupier.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 02:01 PM

The fact that the "premises" are licensed does not give the right to all and sundry to put on entertainment there without the knowledge or consent of the rightful occupier.

I am sure they have asked the consent of the poor sods who do occupy these streets in their cardboard boxes.

But thank you for making my point. The public licensing of streets and open areas - as if they were premises that did have occupiers and licencees - has only increased restrictions on entertainment that can take place there.

But without this afterthought being introduced (in the Guidance) - the words of the Act would have actually prevented most of it (like travelling circus and Punch and Judy shows) altogether.   

As far as I am aware and I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong - the moving vehicle exemption was an old one (like the one for garden fetes) that also applied to PELs and would have enabled carnival floats to be exempt.

If this is the case - as long as our procession was comprised only of floats - they would not have needed licensing permission. Now that (some of) Sheffield's streets have Premises Licence entertainmemt permission - we would have to abide by any restriction that the council wish to place............

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 04:11 PM

But thank you for making my point. The public licensing of streets and open areas - as if they were premises that did have occupiers and licencees - has only increased restrictions on entertainment that can take place there

Nothing posted by either myself or by snuffy has made your point at all. Far from it. The licensing of some of the streets of Sheffield has made no difference whatsoever to how much music is made on those streets. The fact that you fail to understand and/or disagree with the point we make does not make it invalid.

As for it being an afterthought how do you know? And anyway if it had not been in the Guidance which as you know has no statutory function, what was to stop a council licensing streets or other open spaces?

As far as I am aware and I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong - the moving vehicle exemption was an old one (like the one for garden fetes) that also applied to PELs and would have enabled carnival floats to be exempt

You are - as far as I know - wrong. The moving vehicle exemption was included specifically to allow the Notting Hill Carnival to go ahead.
That came from a civil servant involved with the drafting of the legislation.

There is no mention of moving vehicles in previous PEL legislation that I can find.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Willa
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 04:15 PM

See this article http://www.thisishull.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=136730&command=displayContent&sourceNode=136541&contentPK=15062751&folderPk=79656

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Willa
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 04:18 PM

Link: hope it works this time!http://www.thisishull.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=136730&command=displayContent&sourceNode=136541&contentPK=15062751&folderPk=7
Last few paragraphs are relevant.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 06:41 PM

The fact that you fail to understand and/or disagree with the point we make does not make it invalid.

Under the Act, everywhere can now be considered as licensable premises. This is a general increase on where licensing was applicable before.

The simple point being made is that when a council obtains Premises Licence entertainment permission for its open places - it is a practical fact (resulting from the above) - that the general licensing restrictions are increased and not reduced.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 05 Aug 06 - 06:20 AM

Your question originally was - could you and I hold a parade on (the newly licensed) Sheffield's streets?

That was answered twice once by me, and once by snuffy - no we can't without permission. That hasn't changed and is not different to before the Licensing Act 2003. If we have permission we can, if we don't have permission we can't.

It is identical all over the country including those parts of the country to which the Licensing Act does no apply - like Scotland and Norhern Ireland.

Now, is there a new question?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 06:28 AM

The simple point is that now - Sheffield council are now effectively the licensees for some of their streets.

As such (as pointed out by Snuffy) ) as the licensee they can make any rule, restriction and demand that they choose for what entertainment does or does not take place on their now licensed premises.

As the licensee imposing rules for their own licensed premises - they can NOW come up with the sort of local guidelines and quotas, like the one for carnivals, dreamed- up by West Wilts.

Also I can now see nothing preventing Shefield council, at some point from imposing a further charge on anyone wishing to hold entertainment on what are now their licenced premises - can you?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 06:49 AM

Maybe I'm missing something but, shambles, as far as I can see, the only difference the licensing act has made is that Sheffield have licenced the streets to enable events that previously required no licence. As such, the councils I would be more concerned about would be ones that have not licenesed thier streets as presumably an entertainment licence would be needed for certain events IN ADDITION to the permision from the council they would need anyway.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 08:45 AM

Thank you Guest Jon, I was beginning to think it was me!!

The simple point is not
as the licensee they can make any rule, restriction and demand that they choose for what entertainment does or does not take place on their now licensed premises

The simple point is as the owner (and as any other individual and organisation), they always could, and I cannot see what more I can say to try and convince you that as far as that is concerned NOTHING HAS CHANGED. It is called "giving permission".

Also I can now see nothing preventing Sheffield council, at some point from imposing a further charge on anyone wishing to hold entertainment on what are now their licenced premises - can you?

They always could charge. As far as I am aware they didn't charge to have a parade, but they could. For a number of years they have charged temporary stall holders at craft, famers, and continental markets. They charge permanent stall holders on the area known as the Moor, and the kiosks in the area known as Castle Square. I for one am glad they do make these charges - it helps to keep down the council tax charge. I wouldn't agree with them charging to have a parade but I certainly can't stop them and the Licensing Act has not changed that.

Now if after me and other people have tried to explain the concept of "permission" to you - failing to do so as I freely admit - would you be kind enough to explain to myself and the others why you believe you do not need permisssion to arrange a parade of any sort, on the streets of Sheffield, Weymouth - or of any other town?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 09:05 AM

as the licensee they can make any rule, restriction and demand that they choose for what entertainment does or does not take place on their now licensed premises

I suppose it is a bit like a pub really!! Or do you know licensees that have abrogated that right?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 02:15 PM

I wrote to the Wiltshire Times about their decision to ban majorettes and they were kind enough to publish it. Anyone who wishes to, can read it here

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 05:41 PM

I suppose it is a bit like a pub really!! Or do you know licensees that have abrogated that right?

Exactly.

For we can always rely on the fact that a pub has vested interest in providing some form of entertainment - having applied for permission to do just that. And attracting people to be entertained that is their main and only object. The whole Act relies on such a structure.

We cannot rely on this when the licensee of the premises is the local council. What we can rely on is lots of conflicting interest and lots of different committees and more local restrictions. Even more red tape - the very opposite of what the Act was supposed to do.

If a pub licensee did not want to stage one form of entertainment - hopefully we could find another who would. If a local council decides not to do this for some of their streets and open areas - as the Premise Licence holder is perfectly entitled to do - that is it - there is nowhere else to go - is there?

Whereas if the council had prevented cutural activities - as the local Licensing Authority - the Statutory Guidance to the Act requires them to re-visit the Local Licensing Policy that had deterred it.

The Act's Statutory Guidance states -

Cultural strategies
3.47

Where there is any indication that such events are being deterred by licensing requirements, statements of licensing policy should be re-visited with a view to investigating how the situation might be reversed. Broader cultural activities and entertainment may also be affected.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: Folkiedave
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 06:33 PM

You are beginning to argue with yourself in the same post. This can go no further.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 08:21 PM

You appear to be arguing that the situation now - where some councils are obtaining Premises Licences entertainment permission and becoming in effect the licensee for some of their open areas - is better or at least no worse than it was before.

We must beg to differ - as I consider this 'patch-up' will prove to be far worse and for the reasons I have stated.

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 08:55 PM

You appear to be arguing that the situation now - where some councils are obtaining Premises Licences entertainment permission and becoming in effect the licensee for some of their open areas - is better or at least no worse than it was before.


Shambles, whether the streets are licensed for entertainment or not makes no difference to the council's "ownership". They could say yes or no before and they can say yes or no now.

The fact that they are licensed does nothing other than making the staging of an event covered by the act easier. It makes more sense than the same hoops being jumped through for each and every event doesn't it?

Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 02:14 AM

The fact that they are licensed does nothing other than making the staging of an event covered by the act easier. It makes more sense than the same hoops being jumped through for each and every event doesn't it?

Not really - and I have explained why.

This is a half-baked idea to try and get around the effects of the Act's - intitial at least - catch-all approach. By making any place in effect a premise where entertainment permission was required. It is that approach that has resulted in some councils taking this course.

I am sure that many find this attractive and are taking this course for all the wrong reasons. As the licensee, they will now have total control over what entertainment does or does not take place. As any restrictions do not have to follow any safeguards contained in the Licensing Act or its Statutory Guidance - if they, as the licensee decide they do not want a form of entertainment - it will not happen. If they, as the licensee decide to charge for others for using - what for licensing purposes are now their premises - I can see very little to stop them.

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.

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 - 12:43 PM

We?

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.