|
02 Dec 08 - 08:55 AM (#2505774) Subject: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Manitas_at_home Please sign the e-petition at the link below to protest against Form 696. The 696 Form compels licensees who wish to hold live music events in 21 London Boroughs to report to the police the names, addresses, aliases and telephone numbers of performers, and most worryingly, the likely ethnicity of their audience. Failure to comply could result in fines or imprisonment. We believe this places unnecessary and frankly Orwellian powers in the hands of the Metropolitan Police, an institution which does not have the best record of racial fairness. The 696 form can only serve to deter the staging of live musical events - a positive form of activity in London and all cities - stifle free expression and quite possible penalise certain genres of music and ethnic audiences. It is an intrusion too far. http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Scrapthe696/ Colin Callan 29 Clarkson House 6 Great Stanhope Street Bath BA1 2BQ Tel: 07760 402221 |
|
02 Dec 08 - 08:58 AM (#2505777) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: nickp done |
|
02 Dec 08 - 09:07 AM (#2505781) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Leadfingers Done ! |
|
02 Dec 08 - 09:08 AM (#2505782) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST,Tom Bliss Me too. |
|
02 Dec 08 - 09:16 AM (#2505789) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: BB Some people seem to believe this isn't true, but further research dicovers an article in the Independent on 21st November, and the actual form on the Metropolitan Police site. I've tried to do links, but for some reason can't do so, so try doing what I did and google "form 696" (I didn't believe it at first either!)- you should find both. Some people also say that the petitions do no good, as the option to sign them simply gives the government the excuse that they consult the people, so find any other way to harrass the government or Boris Johnson or your MP about it as well. Incidentally, this isn't actually legislation as far as I can see - it's not in the Licencing Act - it looks far more as though it's the police taking the law into their own hands, which is really frightening considering what else has been happening recently! Barbara |
|
02 Dec 08 - 09:21 AM (#2505795) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: muppitz Definitely in, as an event organiser I'd hate to have to provide such details, it may even push me into folding the club were it to stretch outside of London (Which it invariably would!). muppitz x |
|
02 Dec 08 - 09:21 AM (#2505796) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: TheSnail Signed. See this previous thread - all singers are terror suspects. |
|
02 Dec 08 - 09:43 AM (#2505816) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Sleepy Rosie How loathsome. Is the potential power of the collective political singing voice (marching & protest songs?), being 'by the way' quietly silenced by this act? |
|
02 Dec 08 - 12:53 PM (#2506014) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Richard Bridge It is regrettable that this petition has (probably) sprung prematurely: I know one was under consideration from other sources. The main point for me is this. Consumer music (what Fergal Sharkey represents) can comply with the requirement for form 696. The names are booked in advance. What cannot comply is less formal music: the open mic, the singaround, the folk club where people join in on chorusses. |
|
02 Dec 08 - 12:59 PM (#2506023) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: kerry and Mandy and us. all singed |
|
02 Dec 08 - 03:19 PM (#2506142) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: VirginiaTam done here and Chris as well. |
|
02 Dec 08 - 06:57 PM (#2506357) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Don Firth I would sign it, save that, being American, my signature probably wouldn't be legal. What has me curious is this: What is the stated rational for this regulation? Does this have anything to do with the BNP, which I keep hearing so much about lately? Don Firth |
|
02 Dec 08 - 07:27 PM (#2506379) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Lanfranc Duly signed. Don, this is nothing to do with the BNP. To my horror, even they would appear to be more moderate than the present UK Government and their agents in the Metropolitan Police (cf the present furore over the arrest of an MP who dared to obtain and release information embarrassing to our Scottish overlords (AKA "New Labour")). Such a parcel of rogues in a nation.... Alan |
|
02 Dec 08 - 08:36 PM (#2506430) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: M.Ted Don,the rational, I believe, corresponds to our own "Patriot Act", (which now requires that I present identification to purchase certain "over-the-counter" cold medications). The idea being that certain types of performers attract certain types of people- I am appalled, but not surprised by this. |
|
02 Dec 08 - 09:44 PM (#2506461) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST,Gweltas1 Done |
|
03 Dec 08 - 02:35 AM (#2506555) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: pavane Signed |
|
03 Dec 08 - 03:34 AM (#2506579) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST,Howard Jones I think there is a danger of a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to this. The form is a risk assessment, and it surely cannot be disputed that for some events a risk assessment of this nature is advisable. However, there's no doubt that the form is very insensitively worded, which has provoked the accusations of racism. Some of the wording is also quite threatening, as it implies that failure to co-operate will result in the event being stopped. One of the policemen interviewed about this said something along the lines of "If you don't complete this form you're putting your venue at risk". But perhaps this is just the plod's traditional cackhandedness when it comes to PR. There is also some confusion over where it is to be used. The police are saying it's only intended for large events, and that a pub putting on music for its regulars needn't bother. But the Met's definition of a "significant event" covers all licensable live music events, and the form also apparently covers private parties, which I thought were outside the Licensing Act. I've only looked at a couple of boroughs' Licensing Policy Documents but in these ones using Form 696 is only a recommendation and is not mandatory, except in some cases for nightclubs and similar events. What would be helpful is some evidence of how it is actually being applied. Is it just being used for large events? Is it being used mainly for events which are likely to attract certain ethnic groups? Is it being applied to all licensable live music events? Nevertheless, I have signed the petition. Firstly, even if there has been an over-reaction, there is the danger that licensing authorities may come to see this as best practice, and in usual CYA fashion will apply it to all live music rather than have to make difficult and possibly contentious decisions over which events require it. Secondly, I resent the implication that any live music event is a threat to law and order. Thirdly, for the sorts of music that Mudcatters will be most involved with, it is impossible to comply with, since at most folk clubs and sessions you won't know in advacnce who will be performing. |
|
03 Dec 08 - 04:15 AM (#2506608) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: VirginiaTam Is it me or is government growing more "bass ackward" as time passes? This form falls on the heels of the issues that cropped up during last Knottinghill Carnival, am I right? That says something about the racist implications in it self. As an American living in England, I have been quite surprised how little personal judgement policemen are permitted. When I first moved here I was gobsmacked by arrest of a woman for carrying a lethal weapon (her son's toy plastic sword) on the back seat of her car. Remember the fellow shot dead for carrying a table leg. Look at Jean Charles Menendez. This can't all be poor judgement, there is something wrong in the way the police are recruited and trained. Not that things are much better in the US what with brutality and inappropriate racial targetting by police. I suppose there are and will always be pockets of mass stupidity with the power to make collosal mistakes. Bless the media for always letting us know. So who is up for a music demonstration in London? Would be great if could be a kind of strolling wassailing force. |
|
03 Dec 08 - 04:26 AM (#2506614) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Sleepy Rosie Love the idea of a strolling singing demo... |
|
03 Dec 08 - 05:20 AM (#2506652) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST,Howard Jones I can see why the police introduced this form. No one can deny that some music events do attract trouble, and it helps both the organisers and police to carry out a proper risk assessment. However it's pretty stupid of them to have so blatantly aimed it at black music or black audiences, and it's also pretty stupid to suggest that all licensable live music is a threat to law and order and requires this form to be completed. I'm sure the police don't actually want to be inundated with thousands of forms covering events and genres of music which have run for years with no crime or trouble all. They must want to focus on those events where there is a serious risk of trouble. As usual, the danger lies with bureaucracy overtaking common sense, and the risk that this will come to be applied indiscriminately. Of course, the other danger is that it will be applied too discriminately, based on the ethnicity of the performers and/or audience rather than actual risk. The problem is, that the police's only experience of live music is those events which require a police presence - the vast majority of events which take place with no crime or trouble just don't register with them. From a copper's point of view, the connection "live music = trouble" reflects their experience. It doesn't reflect mine, and I suspect most people's, if you take the whole spectrum of music. But is there any actual evidence of the form being used inappropriately, or of licensing authorities insisting on its use even for low-risk events? |
|
03 Dec 08 - 07:51 AM (#2506738) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST,Hamish Birchall Despite being repeatedly asked by individuals and organisations (Musicians Union, Live Music Forum and others) over the past 5 years, neither the police nor the government have produced any evidence suggesting that live music results in significant crime and disorder. Occasionally there is trouble at some gigs. But the police don't need Form 696 or the Licensing Act 2003 to prevent it. They have powers under separate legislation to intervene if they believe there is likely to be a breach of the peace at a venue. It would be helpful to know how Form 696 is actually being implemented. But a more relevant question might be: Why don't the Met and London Councils ask bars with big screens to provide the names, addresses and dates of birth of all punters who come to watch football? In 2003, the police wrote to Tessa Jowell, then Secretary of State at the Department for Culture, recommending that televised sport in bars should be made a licensable entertainment because 'it attracts large crowds and quite frequently leads to disorder'. The government rejected that recommendation. |
|
03 Dec 08 - 08:08 AM (#2506752) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST, Sminky Done. I suspect the form may be in breach of the Data Protection Act (excessive information), but I don't suppose that will cut much ice with the Met. It's a disgrace. |
|
03 Dec 08 - 11:28 AM (#2506917) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST Hi there, Mudcat neighbours - we're up in arms about it over at The Session.org as well: http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/19942 |
|
03 Dec 08 - 11:44 AM (#2506932) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Folkiedave And please seem my post here...... thread.cfm?threadid=116679&messages=1 |
|
03 Dec 08 - 12:11 PM (#2506952) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Mix O'Lydian There is now a discussion about this on thesession.org http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/19942 |
|
03 Dec 08 - 12:12 PM (#2506953) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST,Bob L Must see what our local singing copper has to say... |
|
03 Dec 08 - 02:21 PM (#2507039) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST,foggers Done. I could write a massive rant about civil rights and the long arm of bureacracy using the front of "crime/disorder/terror" to erode our rights to assembly and freedom of expression (which I have always interpreted as meaning musical and other cultural expressions of identity) . But I am knackered and need to go to bed. Love the idea of a protest wassail though! |
|
04 Dec 08 - 12:34 AM (#2507386) Subject: Form 696 and Chicago's Promoters' Ordinance From: GUEST Chicago is also facing a similar ordinance Chicago Promoters Ordinance) that has the potential to destroy the independent music and arts community. For more info there is an excellent video documentary "Chicago's Promoters' Ordinance Kills Independent Music" Humankind doesn't need nanny state policies to keep us safe, in favor of restrictive laws that replace our right to express ourselves freely. Bottom line is that NOTHING is going to keep you "safe" from anything. You may as well enact a law that prohibits the selling of peanuts because you can possibly choke on them. We ALL need to stand strong on this garbage. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 12:48 AM (#2507389) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: CupOfTea Yanno, the "no anonymous guests" policy is a real good one, not just for keeping out the idjit comments, but to make it possible to get more information (when one can't follow the links) from someone who could be messaged. I'd dearly love to know what's going on in Chicago, and my heart goes out to those in the London area dealing with pigheaded bureaucracy that looks to be doing nobody much good. Joanne in Cleveland |
|
04 Dec 08 - 03:07 AM (#2507413) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: VirginiaTam Hi Joanne I am not the guest who posted above, but the link worked for me. paste this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5115748195521107862&ei=WV83ScXwFaGI-gH0jfmsCQ&hl=en in to your browser URL field. Hope it works. To others - I am still up for the Protest Wassail. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 05:14 AM (#2507471) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Sleepy Rosie "I could write a massive rant about civil rights and the long arm of bureacracy using the front of "crime/disorder/terror" to erode our rights to assembly and freedom of expression (which I have always interpreted as meaning musical and other cultural expressions of identity) . But I am knackered and need to go to bed. Love the idea of a protest wassail though!" Foggers, you should write that rant. I wish someone decently clued up on the matter would. So much legislation that has been brought in for our protection, gets abused and ends up being used against us, that I find the broader potential implications of this legislation very unsettling. I don't know if Liberty have commented on it yet. But I'd like to hear something from them. The government are still desperately trying to shove ID cards up our arses via whatever excuse possible, despite mass public disinterest and increasing suspicion. The UK is fast styling itself into a classic Sci-Fi dystopia. I hate to have to put it this way, but 'colourfully dressed, nice clean, safe, white people of a certain age', need to be seen demonstrating against this legislation, to show the average Mail reader that it isn't just the evil dangers of all those 'muslim terrorist rapper immigrants', that we are being protected from. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 05:44 AM (#2507482) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: VirginiaTam snerk Rosie.... 'colourfully dressed, nice clean, safe, white people of a certain age' unblacked Morris sides carrying great muckin' sticks. I am definitely in. Let's really confuse the buggars and go out singing the Celtic Jihad Rap but maybe we ARE too white for this. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 07:00 AM (#2507513) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Sleepy Rosie Lol, that med me giggle.. Sheesh, just realised that the entire town of Wivenhoe fits my description. As does all of Woodbridge. Better get Celtic Jihad Rap song sheets on mass production. Too White? Surely not, what with all those multi-coloured woolly socks, scarves and jumpers? ;-> Seriously, I think it's a sound idea. And if people cared enough to turnout, it could gain broader publicity - though no-doubt of the 'and finally' kind, and maybe encourage further debate. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 08:30 AM (#2507557) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Richard Bridge Also on facebook http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42439007135 |
|
04 Dec 08 - 09:14 AM (#2507586) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST,Brian Signed. For those interested, you can download Form696 from here |
|
04 Dec 08 - 11:42 AM (#2507707) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Snuffy I wonder if the Metropolitan Police have received a Form 696 at least 14 days in advance from the Royal Albert Hall for Handel's Messiah on 14-19 Dec? A mere 500 voices plus the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, sound operators etc: listing the real name, stage name, address, phone number and date of birth of that lot should be an absolute doddle. As well as listing what equipment will be available to facilitate searching on entry Or is this event "white" enough not to need a 696? |
|
04 Dec 08 - 12:12 PM (#2507733) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Folkiedave The original act allows music on lorries - the largest event of which that does this of course is the Notting Hill Carnival. Indeed had that clause not been inserted then the event could not have gone ahead. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 12:23 PM (#2507746) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: VirginiaTam As well as listing what equipment will be available to facilitate searching on entry Good question! Who gets the job of entering the data (in timely way) from returned forms into that machine? Who decides incidence potentiality at any given event? Will they flag certain events? BLACK - 25 mixed teenagers and adults HipHop birthday party in Peckham ACTION - major police presence in riot gear ORANGE - St Patricks parade in Covent Garden ACTION - moderate police presence WHITE - 5 blacked up morris dance sides / handful of folk musicians / 2 ferrets and a horse / Harley Davidson Club at a beer fest in a pub southeast London ACTION - police presence none - unless by infiltration in a morris side. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 12:43 PM (#2507764) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Faye Roche Why not take this idea a bit further? We all have ID cards and whenever we go into a gig to perform or listen we scan them through a reader. Come to think of it, whenever we go into any public building we scan them. Then Big Brother will know exactly where we are and where we've been at any time. Anyone who attended too many subversive events like Billy Bragg concerts could be more carefull monitored. The PC police would also be able to monitor gigs for ethnic balance and anything that was too "white" could be closed down. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 12:50 PM (#2507771) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Rog Peek Absolutely disgraceful. Still, performers being seen as a political threat is nothing new. - From time in memorial. Petition signed Rog |
|
04 Dec 08 - 01:02 PM (#2507782) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Richard Bridge Faye, if you live in London your Oyster card gives them pretty well all that anyway... And your credit cards And road cameras that read number plates |
|
04 Dec 08 - 02:42 PM (#2507853) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Sleepy Rosie I'm experiencing some despair of this forum setting in. Only been a member for a few weeks, but in that small amount of time there have been *three* threads that have strongly taken my notice, which *were and are* worthy of more energy and investment of active interest, which have already begun to sink out of trace. I find myself frustrated through lack of wisdom or experience and as such incapable of taking any serious intiative. But happy to participate, were others with greater knowledge and experience to intitate the right action will do so. It's all very well to 'that's aweful' and 'hum and ha' at the Gaurdian while drinking a nice half of your favourite brown ale and reminiscing. But while the romance of past traditions makes us feel comfy, the reality of current political bull-shite ever impinges on the naive romance of 'The Shire'. Perhaps I'm wrong to feel this way? Are the members of this list more 'thinkers' than 'do-ers'? Of course I'm too new to judge, but in particular I'm personally quite disapointed in the current lack of 'yays' to Tams suggestion of a singing protest. Such a highly pertinant and incredibly easy thing to say 'yeah, I'm up for it' to. Come now folk, engage. If nothing else, it'd be jolly good fun! Of course it could always just be my time of the month... ;-) |
|
04 Dec 08 - 02:54 PM (#2507859) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: BB Might be incredibly easy if you live in London or the South East, Rosie, but a lot more difficult (and expensive!) if you live in the wilds of DevonSHIRE! (or YorkSHIRE, or...) Barbara |
|
04 Dec 08 - 03:14 PM (#2507882) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: VirginiaTam Before I get started I would like to disassociate myself from Rosie's cycles. No offense my dear, as one who is happy to have non functioning ovaries I can now justifiably defend my passions as not being hormonally based. Something I've waited long years to say. Why does a protest have to be only in London? Just because the form currently only includes London it sets a dangerous and copiable precedent. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 03:23 PM (#2507895) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Sleepy Rosie I disagree, I'd move hell and highwater to acheive something I truly cared for. Which is the reason that so many things we now take for granted have been achieved. Progress is achieved through extreme discomfort and resultant dis-ease and conflict, decline of progress through extreme gratification of primal needs and resultant ease and apathy. There's grit in my spam sandwich. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 03:33 PM (#2507908) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Sleepy Rosie Aye, fair enough VTam. Too much... I get heated. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 04:15 PM (#2507953) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Richard Bridge I and my Performer-Lawyer group fought the Licensing Act 2003 tooth and nail for about 2 years - and got precisely nowhere, because the Lib-Dems sold us out in the Lords. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 04:36 PM (#2507986) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Sleepy Rosie Richard Bridge, in all seriousness, all power to your elbow!! I've no party colour flags to fly here. Anyone who is willing to make an effort on behalf of their civil liberties is always something of a hero for me. Thankyou for helping to preserve my liberties, however subtley. |
|
05 Dec 08 - 07:54 AM (#2508524) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Faye Roche There's an easy way to protest against this nasty piece of legislisation; don't fill in the form. If we all agree to co-operate in this they can't prosecute all of us can they? I can see this being taken up elsewhere if we don't fight it. Local councils throughout the land are full of little Hitlers who would welcome it just because it increased their powers to snoop on us and control us. I don't normally play in London but if I ever do, I'll refuse to fill it in. Who's with me? |
|
05 Dec 08 - 08:26 AM (#2508547) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: VirginiaTam In another thread on the same issue, someone suggested we fill out copious forms for everything from church choir practices to kids birthday parties, to school plays. Make em sorry they ever thunk the stupid thing up. |
|
05 Dec 08 - 12:41 PM (#2508760) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: BB Certainly, Faye, I'm sure many of us would refuse, but it's not up to the performers to complete the form, but the venue/organisation that's putting it on. And presumably they would have the details about the performers, at least the paid ones. Barbara |
|
06 Dec 08 - 10:50 AM (#2509333) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Harmonium Hero I'm sure this could all be brought to a halt by the suggestion I was going to make, but which has already been made, of inundatimg them with forms. Including all those events mentioned, and also pubs with juke-boxes, shops with canned music, lifts with muzak, restaurants ... If you start to think about places where 'music' is part of the 'experience', the list is endless. You can't get away from it. John Kelly. |
|
12 Dec 08 - 07:57 PM (#2513949) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST,Paul Mitchell This is a voluntary form, so not filling it in won't result in prosecution. The threat is clear on the form. By filling it in you show you are committed to safe practice that all those applying for licenses would want to participate in. Inundate the buggers. Put in some forms for some busking. Let them tell you that you can't busk there. Thank them for their advice. Send in LOTS of forms for events you might be thinking about possibly considering. Send some in written in Welsh. See what happens, could be interesting. Invite some one round to your living room...... you get the idea. make it a process that can't be managed meaningfully. If some one co-ordinates it for April 1st, or better still May 1st, then it can be accompanied by a press release that will get the media asking the Met some questions. Just an idea. |
|
13 Dec 08 - 09:27 AM (#2514242) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST,bankley they should have just called it Form 666 |
|
14 Dec 08 - 04:53 AM (#2514790) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Richard Bridge Guest Paul Mitchell, it woks like this: You seek a licence under the Licensing Act. THe LA imposes conditions. One of them is form 696. If you now conduct a licensable activity without the form, it is a criminal offence. |
|
14 Dec 08 - 07:00 AM (#2514819) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Dave Roberts Signed |
|
15 Dec 08 - 04:17 AM (#2515528) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST,Howard Jones Richard, you are of course correct. However, the licensing policies I've looked at (and I admit I've only looked at a few) only require Form 696 for certain types of event - nightclubs and similar - and even then it is usually recommended as an example of good risk assessment practice rather than being mandatory. Is there any evidence that the form is being used disproportionatly and inapppropriately? Is it possible that, for the type of event it is aimed at, some organisers may actually find it helpful? I agree there is a real danger that its use may spread, and that lazy licensing authorities with their usual arse-covering attitude may adopt it unthnkingly. We need to be vigilant, and we need to make our objections clear - I have signed the petition. But I wonder whether we are in danger of undermining our case by crying wolf? If in practice the form is only being used to risk-assess events where there is a real risk of associated crime and violence, our objections are not going to be taken seriously. |
|
15 Dec 08 - 04:31 AM (#2515536) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Folkiedave Howard, Let's suppose that a particular band causes trouble wherever it goes. If that particular band's name (or some member's of that bands names and aliases on a different band) name appears on a Form 696 sent into the police, the police say "STOP - you cannot put that band on they cause trouble". This has nothing to do with form 696 for clearly the police knew that this band causes trouble. So why do they need this extra form containing names and addresses - a strange form of risk assessment to my mind. They are not asking for extra powers to deal with it - for they had no trouble dealing with stopping people travelling around the country when it suited them. If they have a form which is (according to its own words) compulsory, then to applying to some venues and not others is simple discrimination. Yes we know it happens. I suppose discrimination its Ok unless you are on the receiving end. |
|
15 Dec 08 - 06:48 AM (#2515613) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST,Howard Jones I'mnot defending the police, or Form 696. It appears very intrusive. But its not as simple as identifying certain bands which may attract trouble. I imagine that this is aimed at situations where there are a number of participants, including their entourages, who may use a variety of names and aliases. I assume that asking for their addresses helps the police to identify them. Whether it's a proper question is another matter. Why the assumption that "discrimination" is automatically bad? There are some events, and genres of music, which are associated with drugs, weapons and violence and which need reliable security and active policing. Should the same levels of policing be applied to your local singaround? If your answer is "no", then that's discrimination. I agree that there's a lot in Form 696 to worry about, including overtones of racial discrimination. What I'm not yet convinced of is that it's actually being misused. For all the heat this has generated, I've still to see any evidence of this. The average person in the street who reads of the latest shooting at some gig will be all in favour of the police taking steps to improve their policing of these events. Are we saying the police shouldn't do their best to control crime at some music events? Or are we saying that this is overkill, especially for the majority of events which don't attract any trouble. If it's the former, I don't think we'll get much sympathy; if it's the latter, let's be sure that it's actually being used to control this type of event, otherwise our views will be dismissed and our broader objections ignored |
|
15 Dec 08 - 08:30 AM (#2515687) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST,Guest: Rupert As a member of an organising committee I think it is safe to say that we would have been delighted if they police had taken more interest and actually come along to help deal with the local youths who decided that it would be good fun to come and cause trouble on our festival camp site. |
|
15 Dec 08 - 08:41 AM (#2515695) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Roger the Skiffler Jazz clubs are also organising signing thepetition. Pernicious! RtS (with one Irish grandfather who was born in India- why am I still at large!) |
|
15 Dec 08 - 12:15 PM (#2515912) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Folkiedave The average person in the street who reads of the latest shooting at some gig will be all in favour of the police taking steps to improve their policing of these events. Couldn't agree more. The argument is whether this "Catch all form" helps. |
|
15 Dec 08 - 02:44 PM (#2516080) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST,Howard Jones "The argument is whether this "Catch all form" helps." With respect, I'm not sure that's correct. I haven't seen much discussion of that. Most of the argument has seemed to start from the presumption that this form is, or may be, compulsory for all events, and that it's excessive, intrusive and inappropriate. The first is (for the time being, anyway) incorrect. As for the second, for some types of event it may well help. I don't know whether a law-abiding promoter of the type of event which this form is clearly intended for finds this form helpful or not - and we're unlikely to get an answer on this forum. However, no one's given an example of it being applied to the type of events this forum is interested in - on the contrary, someone was advised that it wasn't required for a singaround. Neither has anyone given an example of a licensing authority making it mandatory for all events. So far as I can tell, it seems to be used selectively (and for all I know, voluntarily in some cases) for those events where it may actually help to prevent crime. At the moment, there seems to be a danger that a lot of folkies and jazzers are making a fuss over something which doesn't directly affect them, and isn't intended to. Our objections are therefore likely to be dismissed out of hand. I agree there is a danger that it may be extended unthinkingly to cover our sorts of events, but are we doing ourselves any favours by knee-jerk opposition to something which is intended to keep law and order? |
|
15 Dec 08 - 03:24 PM (#2516117) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Folkiedave With respect, I'm not sure that's correct. I haven't seen much discussion of that. Most of the argument has seemed to start from the presumption that this form is, or may be, compulsory for all events, and that it's excessive, intrusive and inappropriate. The first is (for the time being, anyway) incorrect. The form is part of the Licensing Policy for 21 London Boroughs. As Richard says - "Need a licence?. Fill in the form otherwise it is a criminal offence." You need to fill in the form if you are holding a significant event. This definition relates to events that require a Promotion/Event Risk Assessment Form 696. A significant event will be deemed to be: any occasion in a premises licensed under the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003, where there will be a live performer(s) - meaning musicians, DJs, MCs or other artiste; that is promoted in some form by either the venue or an outside promoter; where entry is either free, by invitation, pay on the door or by ticket. Let me pose this question to you. It seems clear that they will have a list of people whose names appear on a list they hold of likely trouble makers. Otherwise the form has no purpose. Suppose you have a group who attract trouble and are thus barred from appearing in night clubs or whatever. Let's call them "The Folk Crew". This crew are now booked at the Notting Hill Carnival and will be taken around the streets of London on a lorry and the police can do nothing about it (through licensing) because regulated entertainment on moving vehicles is specifically exempt. Were it not exempt the whole of the Notting Hill Carnival would have had to close. Now, the police can do one of three things. They can let it go. They can wait until some disorder looks as if it might break out and try and stop it then. Or they can use some part of the Public Order Act to stop the act appearing on said lorry. Since they had no difficulty stopping people moving around the country during the Miner's Strike then they will find something. No form 696, and they have three options all of which could apply to a gig just the same. In other words they have no need for the form. |
|
15 Dec 08 - 03:59 PM (#2516144) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: TheSnail This link was given on the other thread on this subject - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/11/met_police_live_music_terror_trawl/ |
|
15 Dec 08 - 04:09 PM (#2516151) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST,Howard Jones "The form is part of the Licensing Policy for 21 London Boroughs" I haven't checked all 21 boroughs, life's too short. I have looked at a couple and they're similar to this one for Lambeth: "5.19 In premises used for night club style entertainment and where outside promoters use the premises there can be additional risks caused by the style of music played which, can, on occasion attract a different clientele. In these cases the Council expect the Metropolitan Police Service to be given at least 14 days notice of all forthcoming events and have received a MPS Promotion/Event Risk Assessment (Form 696) 14 days in advance of any event" It is clear that the policy applies only to "night club style entertainment" and certain "styles of music". They're not demanding it for all licensable entertainment. It all seems to be getting very polarised with strong views being expressed on the one hand, and on the other hand the Met are saying that it's the result of consultation with nightclubs and promoters (see here), and it's to protect events which attract rival gangs. When you get incidents like this it's not surprising the police want to do something. All I'm saying is that there seems to be a lack of evidence that this form is really causing difficulties. There's also no evidence that this is, or will be, used for folk events. That being the case, I wonder whether this is really an issue folkies should be making a big fuss over, or whether we should keep our powder dry for when something closer to home comes along. |
|
15 Dec 08 - 07:22 PM (#2516356) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Folkiedave Clearly you haven't looked at Kensington and Chelsea or Camden which does not mention night club style entertainment. Just significant events. The problem is that when these things start off there are no problems. Then somethig happens (a one off) let's say at a jazz event and then the licensee is asked for his risk assessment. He hasn't done one ("It was all about black music and rival gangs I was told" he says). He is open to a criminal charge. Rather than fill in a four page form and fill in another form (696A) after the event, the licensee stops putting live entertainment on. Not just the entertainment it was originally aimed at..... Your entertainment. |
|
15 Dec 08 - 07:28 PM (#2516359) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: TheSnail From that link I posted earlier - Detective Superintendent Dave Eyles from the Met's clubs and vice office told us that 10,000 such Risk Assessments would be processed this year. He said they weren't compulsory: "We can't demand it - we recommend that you provide it as best practice. But you're bloody silly if you don't, because you're putting your venue at risk." Not compulsory but... |
|
15 Dec 08 - 07:44 PM (#2516373) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST,Howard Jones Folkiedave, I said I hadn't looked at them all. But Camden's (for example) does not say that Form 696 is required for all events - it is an example of a condition which might be imposed when granting a licence. In the example you put forward, the licensee could only be prosecuted if the risk assessment was a condition of his original licence. What I'm asking for is examples of where the licensing authority or the police are using this form inappropriately. If it's only being used in targeted situations for events where there is a serious problem with crime, then our objections aren't going to carry much weight. If they are being demanded for other events even where there's no real liklihood of trouble, then by all means let's man the barricades. |
|
15 Dec 08 - 08:11 PM (#2516395) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: TheSnail Again, from the link I posted earlier - UK Music chief Feargal Sharkey told a House of Commons select committee that the policy had already been used to pull the plug on an afternoon charity concert of school bands in a public park organised by a local councillor. |
|
16 Dec 08 - 04:28 AM (#2516586) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Folkiedave The Licensing Act 2003 was used to stop Majorettes walking along in a parade. Take a look at this. Now do you seriously think that when this Act was going through if you had said to the politicians "This will lead to banning young children in their majorette troupes" the politician/police spokesman would have laughed you out of court. Yet it happened. Look at the fee in the last paragraph. Fair? Football grounds have to be licensed to provide half-time entertainment. It really doesn't matter what they say they mean. What matters is what that regulation says. |
|
17 Dec 08 - 09:16 AM (#2517762) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: ejsant Once on a slippery slope it is very hard not to continue the downhill slide. As with over here I'm sure there have not been abuses by those in power to move forward their personal agenda either. Seems like business as usual or at the very least up to the new standard. When it comes to things like this I'm glad more than half my walk is over. I hope that for everyone who wishes or prays for one, their holiday season is blessed. For the others I hope your days are happy and peaceful. Peace, Ed |
|
23 Jan 09 - 08:35 AM (#2546907) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Richard Bridge From Hamish Birchall The Metropolitan Police have again justified the use of Form 696, implying a strong link between gigs and shootings. Feargal Sharkey has responded with accusations that the police are abusing event licensing legislation. Interviewed on BBC Radio 4 Today this morning (see 'listen' link and transcript below), Chief Superintendent Richard Martin, responsible for Form 696, said: '... look at last year, [in] 2007 there were 36 shootings linked to licensed premises, 2008 there were 9. You know this is a tactic that works. It's something that's really successful. We very rarely close premises, but what it allows us to do is work with the promoter and provide a safe environment, and for me, you know, what price do you put on someone's safety?' But the crucial question of whether there is any significant link between violent crime and live music was not pursued by Today presenter Evan Davis, who seemed inadequately briefed. The link between disorder and big screen football in bars is far stronger, and yet the government kept this form of entertainment out of event licensing. This was not mentioned. Davis went on to interview Feargal Sharkey, but appeared to think it reasonable that licensees should face a potential criminal prosecution if full contact details of performers, dates of birth and styles of music are not disclosed to the police 14 days in advance of gigs. He made no mention of the Met's definition of qualifying events which is so broad it captures a harpist in a hotel lobby. Sharkey made some good points: '... why are they isolating musicians in this case? And are they now suggesting that the next step will be that all Premier League football players playing in the capital city will have to provide their name, address, date of birth and contact telephone numbers to be screened by the Met Police at least 14 days of that match taking place?' But neither Sharkey, nor Davis nor Chief Superintendent Martin appeared to understand that the mandatory risk assessments already required under health and safety legislation cover all the risks that might arise from putting on live music, including crime and disorder risks. The petition calling on the Prime Minister to scrap Form 696 has over 13,700 signatures and is number 10 in the list of over 4000 petitions on the Number 10 website: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Scrapthe696/ BBC Radio 4 Today - Form 696 - Friday 23 January 2009 - 7.21-7.26am approx Listen: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7846000/7846432.stm Transcript: Davis: Well I'm holding in my hand a Metropolitan Police Event Assessment Form, it's called number 696, and it's aimed at people engaging in the dangerous activity of playing live music [sound of pop music]. That's the sound of 'grime' music there, Tinchy Strider, Wiley and Chipmunk. Well, some in the live music industry are annoyed at the police for trying to get venues to fill out the four-page form which asks for details of the performers and the type of music played. In one version it even asks which ethnic group might be attending the gig. Well, we'll hear the complaints of Feargal Sharkey, the Chief Executive of UK Music in a moment, but here's what Detective Superintendent Richard Martin told the programme about why Form 696 is a good idea. Martin: As with any kind of risk assessment or process, the more information that you can have of an event allows you to have a much more er accurate er assessment of what's going on and, er, you know this is not about any particular type of music, it's just asking what type of music are you playing, you know, what's the kind of audience, where are you playing, when are you playing, who's likely to be there, and I think you know you look at last year, 2007 there were 36 shootings linked to licensed premises, 2008 there were 9. You know this is a tactic that works. It's something that's really successful. We very rarely close premises, but what it allows us to do is work with the promoter and provide a safe environment, and for me, you know, what price do you put on someone's safety? Davis: What price on safety. Well that's the police view on Form 696. Feargal Sharkey, singer, former singer, and er Chief Executive of UK Music is with me. So what is wrong with this form? I know you're cutting up quite a big fuss about it. It's just a form. It just asks you for the name of the performers, it does ask for their date of birth, contact telephone numbers. What's the big deal? Sharkey: Er well, I think everybody would agree that something like the promotion of, the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety are incredibly important. And I've absolutely no doubt that's exactly why Parliament mandated that when you apply for a licence to either sell alcohol or provide live music you have to demonstrate on that application form exactly what it is you intend to do to prevent crime and disorder and promote public safety. Under the er system mandated by Parliament the local police have then 28 days to object to that application should they think you are not doing enough, and request that the local authority attach further conditions to your licence to help you. The simple truth is, it leads me to jump to the simple conclusion that 21 local authorities in London and the Metropolitan Police aren't happy or don't think that the system... Davis: So this is extra on top of your normal sort of... Sharkey: Exactly. And... Davis: Your, you think that it aimed at particular groups and particular kinds of music. Sharkey: Well the curious bit was in its original form that question 'What type of', 'Are there any ethnic minorities going to be attending this event, if so please state which'. Davis: Right, I mean they have removed that, they have removed that question haven't they. I think that was after you started cutting up rough... Sharkey: They have indeed and they have now replaced it with 'Please state the target audience', and I just have a nagging suspicion that white middle class professionals might get a slightly different reaction... Davis: Actually it says 'Who is the target audience, include here if birthday party', erm of course I means it's unusual I suppose... Sharkey: Well I'm pleased to see that the Met Police have got so much to do in their lives that they think a birthday party might be some kind of a risk to the fabric of society. Davis: But have any events been unable to proceed because of this form? Sharkey: The short answer is yes. Davis: Really? Sharkey: And we are aware of one, and ironically enough it was a local councillor trying to do something to help young people in his local area who'd organised an event on a Saturday afternoon involving young unsigned local musicians at which they have a maximum audience of 500 people, and the police objected, and I do have a copy of the letter, because the young musicians refused to hand over their name, their address and their date of birth, and their contact telephone numbers, and, to quote the Metropolitan Police, they objected most strongly to that application. Davis: Because they wouldn't hand over their dates of birth and their address... Sharkey: Correct. I think... Davis: I suppose it could be seen as an intrusion of civil liberties to be asking for that information, but it's not a terribly onerous thing to ask. It's not like asking for their sort of, you know... Sharkey: Well I think it's a curious thing because why are they isolating musicians in this case? And are they now suggesting that the next step will be that all Premier League football players playing in the capital city will have to provide their name, address, date of birth and contact telephone numbers to be screened by the Met Police at least 14 days of that match taking place? [Davies: Well...] Quite clearly the things like that are potentially an issue. Quite what that's got to do with the musicians and why the Metropolitan Police think they can abuse an existing piece of legislation like this I think I will be discussing with the licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe and the local government association at some length. Davis: You should see the risk assessment forms we have to fill out here [Sharkey laughs]. Feargal Sharkey thank you very much indeed. Sharkey: Thank you. ENDS |
|
23 Jan 09 - 08:36 AM (#2546911) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Richard Bridge From me to the BBC producer of the programme "Dear Mr Stone-Lee You probably have not heard of me, yet once I was not unknown in the world of copyright, performers rights, and associated things. I have acted for clients against the BBC, worked closely with out-house lawyers acting for the BBC, and for years was perhaps the most recognised single lawyer involved in the campaign for the proper protection of "format rights" that was so opposed by Tom Rivers then of the BBC. More recently I formed and led the "Performer-Lawyer Group" that campaigned against the many idiocies of the Licensing Bill (now the Licensing Act). In my spare time I am an amateur folk-song-singer, and play the guitar and mandolin for that purpose. I refer to the transcript below. It seems to me that you have missed a significant point. You play "grime" music to illustrate the problem of Form 696. The police used to talk of "hip-hop" "garage" and "bashment" (I always did wonder who was responsible for the amusing but never corrected typo in the last one, it used to put me in mind of the Bash St Kids in the Beano) but the adverse effects of Form 696 are not limited to confrontational types of music. The definition operated by the police of a "qualifying event" is all-embracing. It catches a harpist in a hotel lobby, it catches a group of OAPs gathered round a pub piano (if they can find one) for a sing-song, and it catches, to my great concern, a gathering of folk music enthusiasts in a local pub to sing and play together (and to be heard by those of the village who wish to come). You could as accurately have played a recording of any of those things - but you did not. Your programme therefore gave a less than even-handed impression of who was oppressed and what suppressed by form 696. I am organising an event on this very Sunday. It is in my local pub. Somewhere between 5 and 25 other amateur folkies, mostly between 50 and 80 years of age, will assemble at the pub and we will play and sing during the afternoon. And some of those in the pub will listen. I have some idea which other enthusiasts may turn up - but it is an open invitation. So it would be absolutely impossible for me or for the manager of the local pub to gather the names and so on of the performers who will be there. If Form 696 applied in my geographical area, this sort of informal gathering, singing, playing, and passing on of music, some traditional, some not, could not take place. There are other similar informal gatherings, in the London area, and in other urban areas, to which Form 696 is a very real risk. So form 696 challenges, for no good reason whatsoever, the preservation of our cultural heritage. Participative music, as distinct from the consumption of commercial music, is harmed. While this threat to harmless music-making proceeds, the grunting morons who gather to spill lager and fight while association football is shown on a big-screen TV (with amplifiers so it can be heard down the street) go without regulation under the Licensing Act, and are not subjected to any variant of Form 696. Yours faithfully RIchard McD. Bridge" |
|
23 Jan 09 - 01:16 PM (#2547152) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: Richard Bridge I have had a short reply from Stone-Lee. Depending on how you read it, it might be "Oh, we'll be in touch" - or it might be "Don't ring us, we'll ring you". |
|
08 Oct 10 - 05:47 PM (#3002852) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST,Tom Bliss http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses/petition-view.aspx?epref=Scrapthe696 Government response: Thank you for the above petition. Form 696 is a risk assessment form which the Metropolitan Police requests promoters and licensees of events to complete and submit 14 days in advance of an event in 21 London Boroughs. Non compliance with this may result in police opposition to event licenses being granted. As you may be aware, the 696 form has been updated. The original form asked for details of ethnic groups likely to attend the performance, but that version was revised to omit those parameters in December 2008. In September 2009, the Metropolitan Police announced that venues would no longer be asked for details of the music style. A requirement to provide the telephone number of the performing artist will also be dropped and an independent scrutiny panel will be set up to ensure that the form is not misused. |
|
09 Oct 10 - 05:42 PM (#3003433) Subject: RE: Form 696 - Anti music legislation From: GUEST,The Shambles 17:36 | Tuesday July 28, 2009 By Robert Ashton Culture select committee chairman John Whittingdale has criticised the Government for its "utterly pathetic and hopeless" response to his Licensing recommendations. Whittingdale had set out 26 recommendations in May, but earlier this month the Government overruled most of the key suggestions including the introduction of a licence exemption for smaller venues and to scrap the controversial Form 696. So it is not just the Lib Dems who have renaged. Now that Mr Whittingdale's Party is the Government - his Committee's recomendations to scrap Form 696 are still thought to be of no value. I don't suppose that he will be describing this Govt's response on Form 696 as "utterly pathetic and hopeless" but I will. |