24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs

22 Jul 02 - 07:52 PM (#752714)
Subject: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

http://www.jazznights.co.uk/musicissues.htm

More info on the above site of another Day of Action in London. This is on Wednesday 24 July 2002. Mid-day at The Red Lion in Whitehall.

A long way to come (for some) but I will be coming up from Dorset and I hope to meet you there.

---

22 Jul 02 - 08:33 PM (#752741)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow

They don't give us much notice about these things do they? I'll see what I can do about getting there.

---

23 Jul 02 - 05:57 AM (#752913)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

Subject: RE: PELs Dr Howells on Mike Harding Show
From: fogie
Date: 23-Jul-02 - 04:04 AM

I hear on radio 4 that Billy Bragg is singing in a pub opposite the houses of parliament onWed 24 at 12 noon to confront the issues. There was quite an exchange in the house of commons yesterday. The pub is the Red Lion.

---

23 Jul 02 - 06:09 AM (#752918)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

Entertainment Licences

5. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): What plans she has to reduce the cost of entertainment licences for live music in pubs and clubs. [68961]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): Our plans for the modernisation of the alcohol and entertainment licensing regimes were set out clearly in the White Paper "Time for Reform". The proposed new licensing system will remove at a stroke a considerable amount of existing red tape and reduce the licensing costs that currently deter many venues from providing live music and dancing. The reforms will be implemented by means of primary legislation to be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits.

Lawrie Quinn: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for his recent excellent two-day visit to my constituency. [Hon. Members: "Two days?"] It is a big constituency. As he will remember, he had a listening brief on that occasion and, regretfully, turned down my invitation to go into some of the bars in Whitby to add his baritone voice to the great deal of notable folk-singing that goes on in the area. Next time he visits my constituency, will the people of Scarborough and Whitby be able to hear his lovely voice?

Dr. Howells: I could clear the entire Chamber within three bars.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 1182, tabled in my name? It has been signed by nearly 200 right hon. and hon. Members, which underlines the view across the House that it is a ridiculous law that needs to be amended at the first opportunity. May I extend a welcome to him to visit not only Scarborough but, in a spirit of amity across the Bristol channel, the Red Lion, just across the road, at 12 o'clock on Wednesday, where I, other hon. Members and Billy Bragg will be engaged in a little light singing that may or may not contravene the present law, but will serve to show what a ridiculous law it is?

Dr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will turn out to be a star performer, but it all sounds a bit left-wing for me.

---

23 Jul 02 - 08:00 AM (#752947)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: My guru always said

This Red Lion thing looks like a wonderful happening, but will it get the coverage it deserves??

I sure hope so!

Keep it up you two - you're not talking to yourselves - we hear you and are grateful ;-)

---

23 Jul 02 - 08:11 AM (#752954)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Bill

1. Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden): If she will make a statement on her policy towards the licensing of televising of sport in public houses under the terms of the proposed Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Bill. [68956]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): As is the case with existing legislation, the proposed Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Bill will not include the licensing of the televising of sport in public houses in its definition of public entertainment. A publican, of course, already requires and will continue to require a normal domestic television licence.

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. However, given the licensing disparity between televised football and live music in pubs—the former is subject to no regulation but the latter is subject to a complicated regulation mechanism—will he encourage members of the Cabinet to look at introducing legislation in the Queen's Speech that will reform the public entertainment licence system and encourage live music and particularly young musicians in small venues?

Dr. Howells: We will certainly look at getting rid of the absurd two in a bar rule. I have looked long and hard at the evidence, but we have never received any to suggest that watching television in a pub causes the kinds of scenes that have sometimes occurred in pubs with live music. Nor, indeed, have we had any reports of disturbances caused by watching television in a pub—we have certainly received some reports of incidents following the playing of live music in pubs. Generally speaking, however, pubs are excellent venues for live music. We want to make sure that that continues to be the case and that there are more venues for live music, not fewer.

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North): Following that very welcome answer, does my hon. Friend agree that the distinction between two musicians and seven musicians is irrelevant, and that the real issue is the amount of noise? A string quartet or an unamplified jazz group should be perfectly acceptable in a pub, should people choose to listen to them. Does he also agree that more venues for live music would give work to tens of thousands of amateur musicians and increase our country's cultural richness?

Dr. Howells: I am very much in favour of live music in pubs, but I am not in favour of any Minister in Parliament trying to define what constitutes jazz, folk music or any other kind of music. I have been the victim of one man with an amplifier that nearly blew my head off.

Mr. Speaker: Question 2. Mr. Mole is not here.

---

23 Jul 02 - 08:34 AM (#752963)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow

I'll be there at the Red Lion - so that's me and the Shambles, from the Mudcat. Any more?

It's starting to look like we're getting a wee bit more attention. My wife said she just heard something on the radi about it.

---

23 Jul 02 - 09:18 AM (#752988)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: Bullfrog Jones

And I thought I was getting there with the HTML! (sigh)
BJ

---

23 Jul 02 - 09:55 AM (#753009)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2145258.stm

The above link for the BBC coverage of the event and Billy Bragg's views.

---

23 Jul 02 - 09:59 AM (#753011)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

Spontaeous and exempt it may be but if you had a good time and intend to repeat it the following week, it then becomes public entertainment and illegal without a licence.

---

23 Jul 02 - 12:03 PM (#753079)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow

He didn't say he couldn't sing, just that it sounded horrible. That's plausible enough.

---

23 Jul 02 - 01:37 PM (#753151)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

Where was Mr Mole?

---

23 Jul 02 - 04:03 PM (#753250)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow

I'm pretty sure there have been a number of occasions where football fans coming out of pubs after watching a match on the box have been involved in fights where serious injuries have occurred.

I know I dropped into town centre pub just after a match involving England in the World Cup, and it felt decidedly hairy - and that wasn't one where they'd lost, or where there were any local people backing the other team.

Howells really is an apology for a minister isn't he?

---

23 Jul 02 - 04:14 PM (#753258)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

It certainly would be most useful to be able to find the evidence of disturbances at live TV sport coverage, that Dr Howells cannot find.

There must be press coverage of this somewhere?

---

23 Jul 02 - 05:31 PM (#753309)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow

Of course they wouldn't have any qualms about insisting on a special licences to allow people to watch TV in a pub, and then they'd enforce it against watching the Teletubbies - if they thought they could get away with it.

But any attempt to clamp down on TV in pubs would get a lot of people really pissed off with the minister responsible. Which is why he is clearly leaning over backwards not to see any evidence about discord in front of and after watching the box.

Here is a site which might provide ways of getting this information Research into Football Violence (Hooliganism!)

With giant TV screens talking the place of attendance at live football matches, notably during the World Cup, I think this might well be something that could repay investigation. After all, it's a sight easier for an overexcited fan to get tanked up at a virtual football match than at the real ones. And the people who've been banned from the real matches because they are violent nuts have to go somewhere.

But they won't be at the The Red Lion tomorrow.

---

23 Jul 02 - 05:37 PM (#753312)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: Liz the Squeak

I might.... depends if I can get out of work for a long lunch..... and if I can get down Tottenham Court Road in less than a lifetime!

LTS

---

23 Jul 02 - 05:39 PM (#753314)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow

Friday 17th August 2001 on the BBC Sports site:

The National Criminal Intelligence Service annual report shows 3,391 people were arrested for football-related offences last season - up 8.1% on the previous year.

It concluded that although violence inside stadiums is rare, the problem has shifted to stations, pubs and town centres.

---

23 Jul 02 - 05:44 PM (#753320)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: Cappuccino

I really am very sorry I can't be there. With you in spirit, though.

- Ian B

---

23 Jul 02 - 05:55 PM (#753329)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: vectis

Hope all goes well and you get loads of publicity. I'll be there in spirit.

---

24 Jul 02 - 01:48 AM (#753517)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

Well Lord Archer won't be stealing all the headlines today! Like he did the last time this was tried, for it was the day he got sent to prison and it did divert the journalist's attention from anything else.

I wonder what other news will turn up?

---

24 Jul 02 - 04:19 AM (#753548)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: Dave Bryant

Work permitting, I should be able to make it.

McGrath - I'll have my Ashbury back-packer guitar with me, so if you've got yours we can play a duet !

---

24 Jul 02 - 05:51 AM (#753581)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: Lanfranc

Had I received more notice, I could have been there, too, but there probably wouldn't have been room for me!

"De minimis non curat lex." = The law does not concern itself with trifles. It shouldn't, but it does, because it is too often enforced by Jobsworths.

Re Howells' singing voice, let Flanders & Swann have the last word:

"The Welshman's dishonest he cheats when he can
He's little and dark, more like monkey than man
He works underground with a lamp in his hat
And he sings far too loud, far too often, and flat!"

Ducking swiftly and heading for the bunker recently vacated by Ann Robinson!

Alan

---

24 Jul 02 - 11:19 AM (#753728)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: Dave Bryant

An enjoyable (and alcoholic) lunchtime was had by all who turned up. Watch Ch 5 and other news tonight and you might see Biily Bragg singing, accompanied by a group including The Shambles, McGrath, and yours truly - yes Kevin and I were duetting on back-packer guitars. Kevin also managed to sing his anti-PEL song.

---

24 Jul 02 - 02:35 PM (#753868)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2149289.stm

The BBC news coverage above.

There were many TV people and press people at the event, it would be useful, if you see any of this in the media that you let us know here.

Thanks to all who turned up or were with with us in spirit. We do need, I think to organise a folk event, for the same purpose - any suggestions?

---

24 Jul 02 - 03:04 PM (#753885)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: Micca

Hi Guys, you were on the BBC London news on TV at 6.30!!!

---

24 Jul 02 - 03:08 PM (#753891)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: Sarah the flute

I think I put my comments on the wrong PEL thread didn't see this one - saw the 6.30 news tho. Well done boys!

---

24 Jul 02 - 04:12 PM (#753934)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: Keith A of Hertford

Billy Bragg was on R4 Front Row tonight talking about the campaign and demo.

---

24 Jul 02 - 06:36 PM (#754017)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow

Not at all bad. Mind, after Shambles comments about how at least this time we wouldn't be upstaged by Jeffrey Archer getting banged up, like the last time something like this happened, what do I see on the newspaper hoardings coming down: "Giant Asteroid on Collision Course with Earth".

Anyway we got in a few songs and tunes, though they wouldn't let ordinary people like us into the private do with Billy Bragg and the MPs in the cellar. But Billy came out and did a bit of stuff with us for the medua, picking on "I fought the Law" as his theme song for us to do with him. A bit defeatist. So Shambles switched it to "Time to make some changes", which is effectively the same tune anyway, but better words.

One of the policeman around was said to have told someone he played the uilleann pipes, and wished us good luck - and another to have asked if we could sing any Rebel Songs.

After we split up I drifted into the national gallery, and chanced upon a free concert of wind instruments, by students from the Royal College of Music. Whether they had a PEL I wouldn't know. And there was a free Braziliand Salsa Concert down in the crypt of St Martins in the Fields. So there is still music around, if you know where to look for it.

But walking back to the station I passed pub after pub, and one cafe and eating place after another - and it occurred to me that, though they differed enormously, they all had one thing in common. No live music.

In fact the only live music I heard was down in the underground - two really good buskers, a white bloke with a fiddle and a black bloke with a guitar. And no sooner had they started playing when up came the London Transport man, and apologetically ordered them off. And then on the train, the sound of a melodian, and it was a very young girl busking, and not at all bad, considering she was having to lay single handed with a paper cup in the other hand for the money, and not much of that.

It struck me as very appropriate that in both cases the music was illegal. Like most music in the Land of Hope and Glory.

Oh yes - and as I was walking down to the Red Lion, passing the Household Artillery sentries in their horses, what do I see lying in the road in front of me. A dead rat. You couldn't make it up.

---

25 Jul 02 - 01:54 AM (#754219)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

Now the dust has settled I think the event was good publicity for the MPs, the MU, and for Billy Bragg (who did a great job), but not so good for the issue affecting folk activities now.

There was no reason at all why the 8 or so musicians present, who after all are what the MU exists for, could not have played in the bar. Although it was a small bar, it had been hired as a private function by the MU, as the public did not have access, there were no legal restrictions on the number of musicians.

To restrict these good folk to the 'tradesmen's entrance' as an outside after-thought was a bit of an insult and counter-productive. I think that we will just have to organise ourselves, to get the message accross (what about Sidmouth?).

Two of those musicians had personal experience of the over-zealous by councils of unpaid sessions, but were largely ignored and not introduced to the many journalists. When I did manganed to speak to some, they seemed surprised. The information did not seem to be in the MU press pack or in the script for the day.

Too be fair, there was a fear that the event would be swamped with people expecting a Billy Bragg concert, and confusion that it was to be on the basis of the last event there, but that was hardly reason to largely ignore the very musicians the issue is affecting the most, or making the most of their apperance.

Hamish Birchall was there doing his best, but he is not the MU, just an advisor to them on this issue.

It was nice to see everyone but it was also nice to get back home to Dorset. LOL

---

25 Jul 02 - 02:59 AM (#754240)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

Coverage and photos in the Times and Guardian today!

---

25 Jul 02 - 05:24 AM (#754273)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: nickp

Made BBC TV local evening news here in Somerset (Points West) - mind you it was a good excuse to bring out of the archives the clip of the '2 Somerset singers' and the confrontation with The Yetties (was it?) but the bearded Mr. MP man is a local MP

---

25 Jul 02 - 06:25 AM (#754287)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: Dave Bryant

The Photo in the Times has both McGrath and myself in it. The one in the Guardian has The Shambles looking over Billy's right shoulder and I just manage to squeeze in on the right.

---

25 Jul 02 - 06:42 AM (#754294)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: Brian Hoskin

The Guardian have a video of it on their website. Great stuff, you have to get to the end of the video to see the class musicians!

the video link is on this page

Well done everyone!

---

25 Jul 02 - 10:43 AM (#754395)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow

"Billy Bragg lead MPs in a singalong near Downing Street" - with me on one side of him and David Heath MP and Dave Bryant on the other, all as bushy-beared as any Archbishop of Canterbury.

The one who looks the way MPs are really supposed to look these days, at least Labour or Tory MPs, is Billy Bragg...(But David Heath is a Liberal Democrat, and they can still just about get still away sporting a beard.)

---

25 Jul 02 - 11:02 AM (#754402)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: GUEST,Neil the Goblin

There is a big MP hiding me,I didn't think that was possible.My work computer wont download the video,am I on it? or is David Heath covering me.

---

25 Jul 02 - 02:09 PM (#754500)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

Where did you disappear to Neil? (These bloody Hobgoblins)-Sorry I did not get to say goodbye.

On the video, you can be well heard but not seen....Unlike the MPs, with their mouths taped up, who can be seen but not heard!

And unlike Dave Bryant who I could be heard, even here in Dorset. *Smiles*

---

25 Jul 02 - 02:28 PM (#754509)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

Dear old Boris Johnson was the 199th MP to sign EDM 1182.

He seems to haunt me. Last time I was in London I saw him (and his poor family) in the Tate. I was walking up Charing Cross Rd after the Red Lion gig and I saw him wobbling through the traffic, on his bike.

---

25 Jul 02 - 03:30 PM (#754538)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow

Boris Johnson - I've really got to get down the bookies and back him for future leader of the Conservative Party. He'd destroy Tony Blair in Parliamentary Question Time, I reckon. He'd probably destroy the Conservative Party as well. So that's two reasons to like him.

I can't get the video from the Guardian site either. Maybe there are hordes of people trying to get it at the same time or something. Or maybe I've got my computer set up wrong. What did you play it on Shambles?

---

25 Jul 02 - 07:18 PM (#754654)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow

Got the video sorted out - it's QuickTime, but it doesn't work well streaming with my connection either, so I downloaded it, which took a few miutes though. Good fun, and a memento of a day which was fun, and I hope useful.

---

26 Jul 02 - 07:11 AM (#754843)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

Boris Johnson - I've really got to get down the bookies and back him for future leader of the Conservative Party. He'd destroy Tony Blair in Parliamentary Question Time, I reckon. He'd probably destroy the Conservative Party as well. So that's two reasons to like him.

He did a good job of destroying his bike too.

For those who do noy know, Boris is the large blond chap that Ian Hislop and Paul Merton taunt on 'Have I Got News For You', on BBC TV.

The following thoughts on seeing the video.

At the 24 July action. The MU had hired a bar in the pub as a private function. To hold the stunt and do interviews. As this was a private function and the public were excluded, there was no reason why the actual musicians there, could not have played inside. It was a small bar however......

Wisdom was to keep us outside (and from not paying if possible). Big bouncers on the door, 'if your name is not on the list', etc.

The on-line video of the event will show a nervous and inhibited Billy and MPs singing to an audience of 'snappers' and reporters. The best bit of this video is right at the end.

When they came out and joined us, the whole feeling of the event changed, as soon as all the musicians, who had only just met, joined together. Even under those circumstances, when the earlier audience were joined by a few members of the public (and policemen) outside - the magic of these get-togethers came over.

The best interviews Billy Bragg gave were also outside. I hope some lessons (by the MU) were leaned from this.

Don't tell anyone but there was even a little bit of dancing going on outside.............It was a shame the policeman on duty did not have his pipes wih him........Would it be true to say that only UK people would understand the twitchy and nervous nature of the music making outside on that day. These were based on our concerns for the licensee.

---

26 Jul 02 - 12:27 PM (#755015)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

This Independent article makes an interesting point which underlines the point I was trying to make above.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20025C51

---

26 Jul 02 - 12:47 PM (#755025)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow

Interesting point about how uptight the English tend to be about live music which isn't in a formal setting. However I suspect that it could as easily be a result of the restriction which have marginalised and illegalised it, rather thean the reason these restrictions are there in the first place.

With people like Kim Howells the bottom line is topurism. If enough Americans especially make a noise about how they are going to go to places which are music friendly rather than here, it might get through. Wityhout tta therre is a real danger well not get the kind of change that would liberate music (and liberate people), but th esort that will cage us a little more (which is what current proposals look like doing) will be.

So please please tell them you are going to boycott England, until things change for the better. And it doiesn't matter if in fact you have no plans to visit this country in any case - or if you have every intention of coming.

---

26 Jul 02 - 12:54 PM (#755029)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow

One thinm we need to do to try to change the way we talk about this, and encourage other people to talk about it. By referring to the "two-in a bar rule" we've made it easy for Kim Howells to talk about "abolishing the absurd two-in-a-bar rule" in a way that makes it sound as if he is loosening the restrictions.

We should talk of the "two-in-a-bar exemption" to the general rule forbidding music without a licence in a public place. We don't want the two-in-a-bar rule abolished. We want the exemption widened to allow us to make music as we wish, so long as it doesn't annoy or endanger people.

---

26 Jul 02 - 02:14 PM (#755055)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

The exemption is to what is licensable - "a performance of music or dancing".

It is this defintion that is the problem now and one that will remain unchanged, as there is nothing in the White Paper about changing it.

For there is no legal definition of what a 'performance' is or what is a 'performer'. So our Government just go ahead and bring in reform of something that has never been identfied.

For before music becomes an industry or a profession, it is and must be a means of free expression.

If or when the volume of that expression should present a real noise hazard to others, measures to address this should quite rightly be undertaken. But all music making should not be placed at risk because sometimes and in some places, a noise hazard MAY occur. Or because revenue can be obtained from placing a charge on commercial entertainment.

For the above is the current Civil Service thinking behind the new legislation they are now drafting.

We really need to set up a pressure group that is only interested in ensuring that all types of music making can be enabled everywhere, and never be criminalised.

---

26 Jul 02 - 06:22 PM (#755178)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow

Imagine they applied these kind of rules to spoken communication. It would be illegal to talk in any public place without a licence; but with an exemption so that no more than two people in a bar could talk in an evening. (And talking in church would be OK too.)

And once people started to say (in writing of course, since they wouldn't be allowed to say it out loud) that a two-in-a-bar rule like that was absurd, the kind government would change it so that no-one could talk in a bar, unless the landlord had applied for a talking licence along with his drinks licence, indicating how many people would be wishing to talk in an evening, and what kind of things they might be saying.

And then there'd be a suggestion that maybe spontaneous talking might be allowed, so long as not too many people listened to it, because that would mean it was a performance, and would need a licence.

It really isn't any more ridiculous than the situation we've got ourselves into. And I'm sure that in fact restrictions on our right to communicate in song and music are in breach of the human rights which are now protected by law, and are completely illegal. If it ever got to a court that took such matters into consideration.

---

27 Jul 02 - 04:57 AM (#755394)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

Of course if you recorded your talking on CD, you could then have a well paid DJ go into any premises and play it!

---

27 Jul 02 - 05:19 AM (#755402)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow

Maybe if you used a mobile phone to talk to the other people in the room with you that would be OK too...

---

27 Jul 02 - 05:28 AM (#755404)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

I feel that the fight should concentrate on the current legislation, for it will be with us yet for some time. However as the only answers forthcoming will be that the new legislation will solve all of our problems, it is as well to know what exactly is proposed, rather than all these reassurances and provisos that Ministers and Civil Servants look like they are making up, as they go along and do not appear in any of the proposals.

 The licensing of the sale and consumption of alcohol is one important concern.

 Ensuring the health and safety of the people working in, and those present in all public places, for whatever activity taking place there, is another important concern and one for which more than adequate legislation already exists.

White Paper

1. Why does this White Paper (above) link forever and for no positive reason, two quite unconnected elements - live music making and alcohol consumption and place both of these in the hands of local authorities, whose handling of public entertainment licensing alone has been so criticised by the Government? Both on the type of enforcement action taken by them and on the setting of fees?

2. Why then is live music making on premises, where the public's safety has been assured, to be the only matter to be combined with the licensing of alcohol? When not all, live music making takes place on liquor licensed premises?

3. The same concerns for the public's interests and safety occur for music making, by way of pre-recorded sound (DJs) and for crowds attracted to the live showing of TV sporting events. Why then will these activities not be licensable and not require prior permission from the Licensing Authority?

4. If the purpose of this legislation is the public's interests and safety, why is the "two in a bar" exemption alone to be scrapped, exposing all live music making in public houses to the licensing requirement?

5. In the public's interest and safety, why is the exemption (not in London) for music in a place of public religious worship, not also to be scrapped?

6. Although not in the White Paper, the DCMS in a letter to me 07/06/02 states that. "It is currently the Government's intention to make all places of public religious worship exempt from the requirement for permission to stage a public entertainment in so far as is possible." Is the idea that currently closely regulated public houses, with adequate heating lighting and sanitation, are less safe for live music making than, some of our ancient churches with little or none of these facilities?

7. Also not in the White Paper are statements from Dr Howells (on BBC Radio 2), to the effect that sessions where "no money changes hands", would be exempt from the future licensing requirement. This proposal, if I could trust it, may just possibly enable sessions, but gives the lie to this legislation being about the public's safety. For the same risks apply to live music making, paid or otherwise.

8. Why should payment deprive a live musician of the rights given to the public (and DJs)?

---

27 Jul 02 - 06:45 AM (#755414)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

Just received a letter from Dr Howells. It is a long one but the following, in connection with not making live TV in pubs licensable, is a hoot!

-"we are proposing a deregulatory and not a regulatory Bill"

The 'two in a bar rule' was originally introduced as a deregulatory measure!

Good old 'Sir Humphrey', he has drafted our Kim a good one for him to sign this time.

---

27 Jul 02 - 04:11 PM (#755575)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow

If I was a minister and someone drafted me as ill-thought out letter as that, I'd want them replaced. No competent civil servant could ever ask his minister to sign a direct falsehood, and he does here. So in the letter poor old Howells puts his name to the bald and unambiguous assertion: "We do not currently intend to provide for the licensing...of any public entertainment which is not already covered in the existing public entertainment licensing laws."

But in fact the intention is that the bill will completely remove the two-in-a-bar exemption, rather than extending it, which means that a lot of public entertainment that is not currently required to have a licence will have to have one.

In other words a howelling falsehood.

---

27 Jul 02 - 07:53 PM (#755646)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

It should be noted that public safety is an equally important consideration under public entertainment licensing law. At present, there is no provision under health and safety legislation which obliges premises just selling alcohol to which the public are admitted to have a safe capacity. There is therefore no capacity limit for the vast majority of public houses in England and Wales. Similarly, there is nothing in health and safety and safety law which requires most venues (other than stadia in certain contexts) providing music and dancing to have safety capacities. Accordingly, it is only through public entertainment licensing that a safe capacity limit can be imposed on venues or places at which music or dancing is taking place.

So the 95% of pubs, venues or places where a PEL is not present and in those where no music or dancing is taking place, are unsafe then? As according to Dr Howells, there is now no means and of placing a safe capacity on them.........without music or dancing taking place, and thus creating a need for a public entertainment licence!

Are this people mad, or do they just think that we are?

All these public premises need to be made safe for whatever activity is to take place. If a maximum capacity is required to make them all safe, then introduce measures (a maximum capacity) under health and safety legislation that will ensure that they all are safe, irrespective of whether music or dancing or juggling or knife throwing is to take place? .............Or is that far too simple?

---

27 Jul 02 - 08:06 PM (#755649)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow

"No health and safety legislation can require that free water should be available at a discotheque" - that's absolutely rubbish, and the man must know it. There's absolutely no reason there couldn't be a legal requirement on any place which sells any drink at all to provide free water on request.

That's always been normal practice in any case, until these bastards who run some of these events got into the act.

Sending a sentence like that to an MP is a downright insult. And any minister who could write it, or even sign it, is clearly not up to a job in government at any level.

---

27 Jul 02 - 08:32 PM (#755667)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

What he is referring to is the recent (well intended)addition to the PEL standard conditions. If you remember there was a thread on the subject. The licensee of the Black Dog here in Broadmayne was complaining when it was adopted by the council here. He did not like the condition being imposed on his small country pub, when it was only applicible to raves and dancing.

I tried to dig the thread up but I couldn't remember its name........ Anyone?

---

28 Jul 02 - 05:37 AM (#755854)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

The public's safety (overcrowding) is such a pressing current concern for our Government that in the more than 2 years of these reforms being in the White Paper, no 'safe capacity' has been required for live TV showing of sports events in pubs!

What Dr Howells does not say is that the new premises licence - that all premises have to obtain, even if they are not providing music or dancing and applying for the optional 'entertainment element' - will incorporate operating conditions in the application's operating plan.

The White Paper states that this will cover, (e.g. hours, noise, fire exits, capacity) limited to crime and disorder/public safety/nuisance factors, and set locally on basis of the balance of operators requirements/residents views/police and fire authority assessments.

It would appear from this that all premises, whether or not they choose the entertainment option, will have a safe capacity set. A very good thing. There is no reason why premises providing entertainment could not have two, one for when entertainment is not taking place and one when it is not.

So why the continued pretence that continuing the blanket licensing of music making is the only means of providing a safe capacity?

So there really is no need for a separate and optional entertainment element, which without the exact nature of the entertainment being specified well in advance, no music making can take place. How many of the 95% of licensees who do not have the current PEL, will not choose the additional red tape of the optional entertainment element?

---

28 Jul 02 - 11:02 AM (#755900)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow

If the landlord of the Black Dog in Broadmayne, or anywhere else, won't give you a free glass of plain water when you ask for it, he isn't fit to be a landlord, and the pub ought to be boycotted.

---

28 Jul 02 - 07:00 PM (#756059)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

The following quote from Val Weedon, from the UK Noise Association, in the Times article 25 July 2002.

"Its rare that we ever receive complaints about live music in pubs and bars. In fact, its fair to say that more complaints arrive about the noise levels of amplified pre-recorded music."

Dr. Howells: I am very much in favour of live music in pubs, but I am not in favour of any Minister in Parliament trying to define what constitutes jazz, folk music or any other kind of music. I have been the victim of one man with an amplifier that nearly blew my head off.

I wonder if Tony Blair is aware that Dr Howells is referring to his Prime Minister's attempts at guitar playing, in such terms?

---

28 Jul 02 - 07:51 PM (#756082)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow

I don't suppose anybody out there has a bootleg tape of Ugly Rumours, the group Tony Blair played in? Or photos of our lad in action?

I think that might be the best way of spurring him into giving us back our right to sing and make music.

---

29 Jul 02 - 02:13 AM (#756198)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: Liz the Squeak

No competent civil servant could ever ask his minister to sign a direct falsehood

Well here's your problem.

Firstly, at certain levels there is no such thing as a competent civil servant (I know, I am a civil servant - all the sensible ones are at the bottom grades where they do the work and can't get promoted because no-one else would do it, the exception is in IT)

And secondly, he may not feel able to ask, but the minister would sign it regardless, if it meant another term in office.

LTS

---

29 Jul 02 - 09:25 AM (#756350)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow

I should have said "a direct direct and demonstrable falsehood" - those are the sort that are embarrassing. And it is so easy to write letters that avoid that kind of thing whilst being equally misleading. That is the supreme skill of the Sir Humphreys - and whoever put that shoddy letter together is no Sir Humphrey.

Perhaps the direct fibs were the bits actually inserted by Kim Howells? Thinking it over, that seems much more likely. I know people always say that politicians habitually lie, but they mostly aren't actually very good at doing so.

---

29 Jul 02 - 01:40 PM (#756475)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

The 'Jazzers' present on Wednesday have organised the following event.

You are invited to attend a gathering of like-minded souls to advance

THE FUTURE FOR LICENSED PERFORMANCE IN LICENSED PREMISES

On Wednesday 23rd October 2002- from 2 pm.

THE TRAFALGAR TAVERN, PARK ROW GREENWICH LONDON SE10

Positive forward-looking statements will be encouraged from a wide range of contributors including:-

Hamish Birchall (Musicians Union)
Louise Denny (Eloquent Activist)
Chris Wroe (Greenwich Council)
and representatives from the licensed trade and the media.

THERE WILL BE MUSIC FROM RIVERFRONT JAZZ AND A LICENSED BAR AFTER THE BREAK.

The business should conclude around 5.30pm. The revelry may continue.

David Silk 01689 875683

More details on this and other 'two in a bar' activity to be found on www.jazznights.co.uk (music issues)

---

29 Jul 02 - 01:55 PM (#756487)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: McGrath of Harlow

And the guy who has set that up indicated that other musicians turning up will likely get a chance to have a bit of a session too.

(Actually what he said at the Red Lion thing was "You lot come with your band" and when we said "We're not a band, we've never played together before", he said "You're playing together now anyway, that means you're a band.")

---

30 Jul 02 - 06:53 AM (#756843)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: GUEST,Neil the goblin

Dear McGrath of Harlow, Where can I find the words to the PEL song you sang last wednesday?I would love to learn it and perform it if it's ok with you. cheers Neil. ps.see you at Sidmouth

---

31 Jul 02 - 06:00 AM (#757424)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

If I may say so, this ia a far better song than one about fighting the law and the law winning.

---

31 Jul 02 - 09:41 AM (#757511)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

Has anyone had any joy with the TV sport issue?

I have sent the following to the 'top knobs' of my local police area.

I would be most grateful if you could please confirm that there have never been - locally - any complaints from the public, overcrowding, noise nuisance, or disorder problems associated with pubs providing live TV sport and football matches?

Perhaps you could do the same? Re the following-

1. Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden): If she will make a statement on her policy towards the licensing of televising of sport in public houses under the terms of the proposed Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Bill. [68956]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): As is the case with existing legislation, the proposed Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Bill will not include the licensing of the televising of sport in public houses in its definition of public entertainment. A publican, of course, already requires and will continue to require a normal domestic television licence.

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. However, given the licensing disparity between televised football and live music in pubs—the former is subject to no regulation but the latter is subject to a complicated regulation mechanism—will he encourage members of the Cabinet to look at introducing legislation in the Queen's Speech that will reform the public entertainment licence system and encourage live music and particularly young musicians in small venues?

Dr. Howells: We will certainly look at getting rid of the absurd two in a bar rule. I have looked long and hard at the evidence, but we have never received any to suggest that watching television in a pub causes the kinds of scenes that have sometimes occurred in pubs with live music. Nor, indeed, have we had any reports of disturbances caused by watching television in a pub—we have certainly received some reports of incidents following the playing of live music in pubs. Generally speaking, however, pubs are excellent venues for live music. We want to make sure that that continues to be the case and that there are more venues for live music, not fewer.

---

31 Jul 02 - 04:59 PM (#757700)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: EBarnacle1

The letter from Howells is really poor. "Excessively noisy" is such an ambiguous term that any storm trooper could do almost anything he wanted. Any good lawyer (American style, anyway) could knock it right back down. The catch, of course, is that the publican could be out of business by the time it all gets resolved.

As a folkie on this side of the pond, I find it difficult to believe that 'free' people cannot sing where they wish. I also find it difficult to believe that you have to be a union member to sing in public. (I am a union activist here.) Anyone who has seen older movies with pub scenes can recall seeing people singing together in all sorts of communal situations.

It has been said that people get the government they deserve. Tom Jefferson said that it is the right and duty of citizens to change the government every so often (not that we have been that successful doing that here).

I have real problems with the concept that a group of my friends and I cannot get together in a bar or pub or park and just start playing for our own and passersby's pleasure.

Am I crazy or is the world?

---

31 Jul 02 - 07:45 PM (#757784)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow

"I also find it difficult to believe that you have to be a union member to sing in public." Some thing that are difficult to believe aren't actually true, and that is one of them. (And it wouldn't have made any diffeence if we'd all been members of the MU at that press stunt. Which for all I know some of us were.)

Mind I tend to think that anyone who isn't a member of some union is probably opting out of a civic duty, but that's a different matter.

---

02 Aug 02 - 03:37 PM (#758913)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: EBarnacle1

I agree that everyone should be a union member if a union covers your main source or a major source of your income. If, however, your interest in performing is as an amateur (in the sense of one who does it for the joy it gives) it does not necessarily make sense to pay for the pleasure of lifting your voice.

I also found it disturbing that people who were playing on the sidewalk were treated like vagrants and, essentially, threatened with the choice of running along or being run in. We are not talking of major performances here.

ps, although I now work as a capitalist, I continue my union activities as an "active retired" member both locally and on the statewide level. My former bosses have real problems with this as they now have no control at all over my activities except to have me barred from the facility, which they cannot do because that would be anti-union activity and actionable.

---

02 Aug 02 - 05:34 PM (#758964)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

We are not talking of major performances here.

Err we did a pretty good 'Click Goes The Shears Boys'!*Smiles*

It was a funny event, with a few wires crossed and as I said, it was the MU's party......... We will just have to do a better one ourselves?

---

04 Aug 02 - 06:16 AM (#759533)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

To the DCMS from Hamish Birchall.

Dear Ronnie

I am sorry to have to draw your attention again to inaccuracies and misleading statements made in recent letters to MPs signed by Kim Howells relating to PELs, live television, safe capacities in pubs, noise and public safety. The cumulative effect is to imply, wrongly, that in respect of any live music in pubs bars etc, existing public safety and noise legislation is inadequate to regulate the attendant risks.

This in turn creates the impression that problems associated with live music in this context are driving the Government's PEL reforms, which is, of course, complete nonsense.

Firstly, as Andrew Cunningham acknowledged in an email to me dated 15 May 2002, the Musicians Union had already made representations to the Government about live television and their view that its exemption from licensing as public entertainment was an anomaly (response to Licensing White Paper, July 2000). It is therefore entirely wrong for the Minister to imply that the Union has not yet made such representations (Howells to Jim Knight MP, 17 July 2002, ref: CO2/07524/02434/pa).

Secondly, it is not the case that 'only through public entertainment licensing that a safe capacity limit can be imposed on venues or places at which music or dancing is taking place'. Licensing justices can and regularly do impose a capacity limit on the grant of liquor on licences. The Magistrates Courts, and John Murphy of the Magistrates Association confirmed that this is common in London. Licensing lawyer Jeremy Phillips, co-editor of Pattersons, confirmed that it is also common practice in Birmingham. Such premises may not have dancing without a PEL but they can have music (the reproduction of recorded sound or performed by one or two live musicians).

Thirdly, it is untrue to suggest that local authorities cannot enforce Noise Abatement Notices quickly (ref: as above). The noise policy unit at DEFRA confirmed to me on the phone that local authorities can suspend rights of appeal and enforce these Notices almost immediately, and that all local authorities have the power to seize noisy equipment. Incidentally, you may also have read in last week's Times the comment by Val Weedon of the UK Noise Association: 'It's rare that we receive complaints about live music in pubs and bars. In fact, it's fair to say that more complaints arrive about the noise levels of amplified pre-recorded music'(Billy Bragg leads lament for grassroots music, Dalya Alberge and Richard Ford, 25 July 2002)

I asked those I spoke to at DEFRA and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health whether, in their view, the present legislation was inadequate to deal with noise emanating from premises. Their answer was 'no'. This is reinforced by the DEFRA review of the 1996 Noise Act which found that the majority of local authorities did not feel there was a need to change that legislation, although there may be a need for more resources to underwrite enforcement.
Yours sincerely Hamish Birchall

---

04 Aug 02 - 07:04 AM (#759544)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

Live music making should be encouraged for people of all ages, culture and religion and no single musician should ever in the future be considered to be involved in criminal activity, just for making live music.

Dear Mr Knight

Thank you for the letter from Dr Howells 17/06/01. I would be grateful if you would consider, advise and pass on to Dr Howells the following serious concerns about the accuracy of that letter and the subsequent weakness of the argument contained in that letter, for future legislation? A badly flawed argument that has more holes in it than my old gig bag, one based entirely on these inaccuracies and misinformation, that will continue with legislation that discriminates against and makes criminals of all musicians, for just making live music.

What is required from the Government, is for it to simply ensure that there are safe public premises to enable and encourage as many people as possible to participate in, be exposed to and enjoy the magic and proven benefits of live music making.

Live music making that is a vital element of this nation's culture and identity but has for far too long been subject to interference from unsympathetic, antiquated and unnecessary bureaucratic controls, which are currently making this nation an international laughing stock. For this to be continued under a Government department with a major remit to encourage and protect this culture, and a wonderful opportunity to do so, is totally inexcusable. But of course the Home Office roots of these so-called cultural 'reforms', are still showing. Perhaps if these roots can be grown out, more sensible and forward-looking thinking can yet be demonstrated by the DCMS?

Deregulatory or a regulatory Bill?
Dr Howells makes an incorrect and misleading statement. "I can confirm that we do not currently intend to provide for the licensing (and therefore inclusion in the operating plan) of any public entertainment which is not already covered in the existing public entertainment licensing laws."

As he well knows, there is much public entertainment that is currently exempt from this licensing requirement taking place (quite safely), in some of the 95% of licensed premises that do not have Public Entertainment Licenses. Under the proposals, this live music making is now to be exposed to the current definition of public entertainment. All of this live music making will now be illegal without the premises applying for the entertainment element of the proposed premises licence, specifying the exact nature of this live music making, in an operating plan well in advance. Then this will be subject to local authority approval and conditions being placed on this previously exempt public entertainment. Under this so-called deregulatory Bill, any single musician making music on premises without this entertainment element will be taking part in, what local authorities refer to now, as a criminal offence. This is simply not good enough and does not deserve support.

As the "two in a bar rule" was introduced as a liberalising deregulatory measure, how can the scrapping of this exemption and the exposure of all live music making to the unchanged definition of public entertainment in the proposed Bill, be described by Dr Howells as a deregulatory Bill? Justification given for exposing all live music to the new licensing requirement is - noise. [Ronnie Bridgett on behalf of Dr Howells 07/06/02."The "two in a bar" exemption will be abolished for the perfectly sound reason that one musician with modern amplification or simply microphones can make as much noise as three without, -"]. Does all music making present this concern?

Live TV screening of sports events in pubs.
"If it is the considered position of the Musician's Union nationally that the definition of public entertainment should be expanded, we will certainly consider it."
Why does Dr Howells wrongly imply that the Musicians Union has not already questioned the Government's view that live television should not require licensing as public entertainment in the context of the Government's proposed reforms? Is he really uninformed and unaware that they have? Are written responses to the White Paper, as I have also made, not worth making?

Could he confirm that the Musicians Union raised precisely this point as long ago as July 2000 with the Home Office when that department had PEL responsibility? The MU position was set out in its written response to the licensing White Paper 'It seems from the White Paper that the provision of terrestrial and satellite TV sport in licensed premises will not come under the definition of 'entertainment'. The Union believes that it should, particularly as large, and often rowdy, crowds are involved. We consider it an anomaly that an entertainment licence is not currently required for this type of entertainment'. In the light of this perhaps Dr Howells could explain his statement, and why he has not considered the MU's point, in over 2 years?

The definition of Public Entertainment.

Whatever the views of the Musicians Union may be, it is a matter for them. My view is that to proceed with a long overdue, so-called reform of licensing legislation, without mention of the problems incurred to unpaid traditional folk activities, by the present unsatisfactory definition of public entertainment is unacceptable. To make no attempt in the White Paper to address this definition, demonstrates the unsatisfactory lack of attention given to public entertainment licensing in these proposals. Only made worse by Ministers and Civil Servants making additional and conflicting proposals and statements that do not appear in the White Paper (and being unaware of written responses made to the White Paper). Giving the impression that these statements are an afterthought made up by them as they go along, and adding to the confusion about what exactly is proposed.

"As long as money isn't changing hands, then there's no reason why they should have to have a licence". Following this reassurance given 17/07/02 on BBC Radio 2. Can Dr Howells explain exactly how, without any proposals in the White Paper about changing the current definition of public entertainment, traditional folk sessions, dancing and singarounds (referred to above), are to be considered as not requiring the entertainment element of the premises licence?

Perhaps he could clarify conflicting statements from Ronnie Bridgett of the DCMS? 04/02/02 "It is not planned that the new system will give an exemption to any forms of entertainment. The proposal is that all activities to be held on a Premises Licence (including non-amplified music) would need to be revealed in the operating plan put for approval to the licensing authority." And 08/04/02 "we do not anticipate that spontaneous singing which does not constitute a "performance" under the terms of the Bill or is not undertaken or organised for "reward" as defined in the Bill, will be within the range of the licensing regime. Whereas a musical "performance" as defined in the Bill by a single musician undertaken for "reward" (either his own or the organiser's) will be subject to the licensing regime."

Could Dr Howells confirm that if ordinary people take part in a totally spontaneous outburst of live music making in a pub where "money isn't changing hands", this will not be considered as public entertainment and licensable? What is the situation, if everyone has a great time and with the permission of the licensee, they decide to meet again and repeat it every week? As presumably the element of spontaneity will not apply, will this then become public entertainment, and illegal in premises without the optional entertainment element of the premises licence? Could Dr Howells please explain the additional risk to the public' interest and safety (which necessitates an additional licence), presented to such a non rewarded, live music making activity, with say only four participants - when a reward is made? Or indeed when payment is made to a four-piece folk band making live music in a pub?

Current noise legislation and Noise Abatement Notices.
It is also untrue for Dr Howells to suggest that local authorities cannot enforce Noise Abatement Notices quickly and that these powers "are relatively limited". The noise policy unit at DEFRA has confirmed that local authorities can suspend rights of appeal and enforce these Notices almost immediately, and that all local authorities have the power to seize noisy equipment.
Could Dr Howells confirm that DEFRA and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, when asked recently whether, in their view the present legislation was inadequate to deal with noise emanating from premises, that their answer was 'no'? This is reinforced by the DEFRA review of the 1996 Noise Act which found that the majority of local authorities did not feel there was a need to change that legislation, although there may be a need for more resources to underwrite enforcement.

Can Dr Howell please confirm that where some music may sometimes present a noise concern, all noise concerns do not emanate from music, or indeed exclusively from live music making?

Other existing legislation.
. Why does Dr Howells make the absurd claim that blanket entertainment licensing and the optional entertainment element, covering of all live music making, and live music making only, should be stretched to cover, and must be relied on, to deal with general public nuisance? Reform or introduction of that legislation, surely best addresses any shortfalls in legislation designed to deal with the public's safety in general or with criminal activities in particular?

The present public entertainment licensing legislation already favours the same few residents who always seem to complain about activities that benefit the majority. If health and safety legislation and measures to make premises safe, and to deal with public nuisance generally is considered by the Government to be limited or deficient then surely it is this legislation that should be reformed?

I can't help but think the DCMS is getting desperate here in their attempts to try and justify the continuing of unjustifiable blanket licensing of all but only live music making. Because you may always have tried to paint the Forth Bridge by applying the paint with a toothbrush, does it mean that you have to continue to do this, when other more efficient means become available?

Safe capacity and overcrowding.
Will Dr Howells accept that he is quite wrong to claim that a capacity limit can only be set in pubs via a PEL? Will he accept that imposing safe capacity is a regular occurrence where the fire service, who must attend these Court sessions, make a recommendation that a safe capacity should be fixed? The justices use s 4 (1) of the Licensing Act 1964, allowing them to impose conditions that are 'in the public interest'. Such premises may not have dancing without a PEL but they can have music (the reproduction of recorded sound or performed by one or two live musicians).

Is Dr Howells aware that recently, the Magistrates Courts, and John Murphy of the Magistrates Association confirmed that this is common in London, and that licensing lawyer Jeremy Phillips, co-editor of Pattersons, has confirmed that it is also common practice in Birmingham.

Is Dr Howells really saying here that the 95% of liquor licensed premises where a PEL is not present are currently unsafe?
And those premises where no live music or dancing is takes place cannot be made safe now?

Is Dr Howells saying (in a fine example of Catch 22), that there is now no means of placing a safe capacity on them - without music or dancing taking place, and thus creating a need for a blanket public entertainment licence or optional entertainment element.

Ensuring the public's safety in this regard does not seem to have been of pressing concern for this Government as the safe capacity issue has been identified by them for well over two years!

Should it be of some more urgent concern to Dr Howells, if he really believes that the public's safety, in the matter of overcrowding at live TV sports events in pubs cannot currently be dealt with by ensuring a safe capacity?

Can he confirm if a safe capacity is to be imposed on all premises, as an automatic condition of the new premises licence?

Or is a safe capacity only to be imposed if the premises apply for the optional entertainment element?

If the issue is really safety, can overcrowding in licensed and other premises ever be considered by this Government as an optional concern?

Duplication and purpose of entertainment licensing legislation.
The introduction to the White Paper demonstrates the doubt and clear duplication inherent in proposals intended to reform legislation - the purposes for which for which, it is admitted, are not expressly stated in the legislation!
So the people drafting the proposals make them up, despite the considerable duplication involved, in particular for the entertainment aspect and never question if there is actually still a real need for blanket entertainment licensing legislation, on liquor licensed premises especially.

There is very little thought given to premises that just want to provide live music making and do not wish to serve alcohol. Understandably, as this is clearly a reform of liquor licensing arrangements, with entertainment licensing only being tagged-on as an afterthought. The rather strange point made for assuring public safety under Public Entertainment Licensing, is that (because events can attract large numbers of people). Is overcrowding a concern only limited to all, but only live music making events?

4. The purposes of the current arrangements for licensing leisure and entertainment outlets are not expressly stated in the legislation: this itself is a drawback. They should, we think, be judged against the following main objectives:
Alcohol protecting the public from crime and disorder
protecting children from too early an exposure to alcohol
preventing nuisance and disturbance to the public

Public Entertainment Licensing (including theatres and cinemas)
protecting the public and minimising nuisance as above
assuring public safety (because events can attract large numbers of people)

Night Cafe/Late Night Refreshment Houses
protecting the public and minimising nuisance as above
health and safety relating to night-time operation

Cultural effects of permanently linking alcohol consumption and live music making.
It is the unnecessary and permanent linking together of two quite separate elements, alcohol consumption and live music making, for no positive reason, that make these proposals so counter-productive. Live music making should be encouraged for people of all ages, culture and religion. Alcohol consumption on the other hand, is illegal for the young and not encouraged by many cultures and religions and presents many health and social concerns.

Scottish public entertainment licensing legislation.
The unnecessary combination of quite distinct issues also makes it difficult to follow the sensible approach shown in Scotland, where other existing legislation (the same as in England and Wales), is thought sufficient to ensure the interests and safety of the public.
Where during normal opening hours, liquor licensed premises in Scotland do not need additional licenses or permission for any live music making. By linking together alcohol consumption and live music making in these proposals and effectively doing away with 'permitted opening hours'. The sensible approach shown by our fellow EEC neighbour cannot easily be followed. It is not too late surely, to seriously look at this approach? Perhaps Dr Howells could finally detail the reasons why this excellent example for encouraging all live music making cannot, be adopted in England and Wales?

Government control of the power of local authorities.
As for the past two years, the Government has been unable to control or even issue guidance to local authorities when these indulge in enforcement actions that are criticised by the Government. It is difficult to see, without some concrete measures being detailed, how for example local authority employed, environmental health officers who are to be given even 'greater influence', will be constrained to any degree of proportionality. Why, if local authorities do not show this, is it necessary for those affected to have to take expensive legal action? For at present it is enough for a council employee to claim that a live music making event is a public entertainment. Thus its participants are involved in criminal activity and the onus is then on the participants to go to Court to try and prove that they are not, a situation that is set to continue under the proposals. The presumption of innocence does not appear to be a factor in entertainment licensing.

Preventing music making that is not presenting a noise nuisance.

Has Dr Howells seen in last week's Times, the comment by Val Weedon of the UK Noise Association? 'It's rare that we receive complaints about live music in pubs and bars. In fact, it's fair to say that more complaints arrive about the noise levels of amplified pre-recorded music' [Billy Bragg leads lament for grassroots music, Dalya Alberge and Richard Ford, 25 July 2002]

Does Dr Howells accept that many complaints to noise levels of late night establishments using only amplified pre-recorded sound and strangely absolutely no live music, will perversely already have the Public Entertainment Licence. A measure that he claims to be the answer to noise from all live music making! [A PEL is required now for these premises operating out of 'permitted hours".]

I would be grateful if Dr Howells could detail the extent to which the 'variation' he refers to, can be enabled without re-definition of what is licensable, and for its effect on the following?
Can Dr Howells confirm that no current live music making (presenting a noise concern or not), will be prevented on introduction of this proposed legislation? I refer to the live music making taking place in the 95% of liquor licensed premises currently without PELs, if the licensees of these premises do not choose to, with the additional red tape, apply for the optional entertainment element of the compulsory premises licence?

Even if live music making is prevented in only one place, for this reason, it is not acceptable to many. Is this risk acceptable for Dr Howells?

Alternative suggestions.
All premises should be made safe for whatever activity is to take place. As they will be paying the same fee, whether the optional entertainment element is applied for or not, why not make all premises safe initially, in the premises licence, for whatever activity may take place, including live music making? The licensee would then have the flexibility to operate this or not and would not have to obtain permission, if they later decided to operate some form of live music making. For example when approached by a folk club looking for a home. The local authority would only need to specifically address any resulting and specific noise or public safety problems, if or when these occurred.

Premises where the main function was dancing, could have any existing legislation and conditions, thought necessary to these particular concerns, imposed on their premises licence. This would not result in other premises where live music making was just additional to their main purpose (and having to choose the entertainment element to enable some live music making), then having standard conditions imposed that did not apply. This would prevent small country pubs continuing to have conditions imposed on them, like having to provide free drinking water for prolonged dancing or 'chill-out' rooms for non existent drug use and hyperactive dancers.

Non-liquor licensed premises.
Is it safe to assume under these proposals that premises which do not wish to serve alcohol but do wish to provide any form of live music making, will still have to specify the exact nature of this in an operating plan? Will have to gain local authority permission for this, but will not have to pay any fee to make their premises safe for live music making?

Human rights.
Licensing legislation should first take into consideration the Human Rights legislation. If there is a real and specific public safety issue, the right to free musical expression can quite correctly be prevented. If there is no such issue, no music making can or should be prevented. That is the current law.

What industry?

It is difficult for many to see the 'greater freedoms and opportunities' or indeed much 'balance' in measures proposed by a department set up to look after culture. I have no idea exactly what 'industry' Dr Howells is referring to. Is it the selling of drink industry or the music industry? Either way it does not seem to have much relevance to ordinary people who just wish to continue, with the licensee's permission, the tradition of making some music together in a country pub. [Evidence of this long tradition can be supplied.]

Summary.
I am reminded of the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes. On discovery, which option is the sillier? To continue to strut about naked, or to try and recover some dignity, put some clothes on and try to really improve an unfortunate situation for everyone? Dr Howells may find that if he stopped dismissing every genuine concern and sensible suggestion that is made to him, or stopped using these as an excuse for a light hearted comment, he may find some support, rather than continued to be attacked on all fronts. Many supporters of this Government, who trusted that this reform would address the many difficulties presented by the outdated concept and enforcement of blanket licensing of all but, only live music making, feel their trust was misplaced. THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE OPTIONAL ENTERTAINMENT ELEMENT FOR ALL, BUT ONLY LIVE MUSIC.

 Whatever the law is now, about noise, and effective measures to control it, the new law can perfectly well apply, whatever rules the Government requires about noise for all licensed premises (whether or not they provide live music making). It is a complete non-sequitur (or worse) for Dr Howells to try and maintain a reform of entertainment licensing legislation on the basis that a licence for all but only live music making is needed to control noise.

 Whatever the law is now, about capacity limits, the new law can perfectly well apply whatever rules the Government requires about capacity for all licensed premises (whether or not they provide live music making). It is a complete non-sequitur (or worse) for Dr Howells to try and maintain a reform of entertainment licensing legislation on the basis that a licence for all but only live music making is needed to control overcrowding.

 Whatever requirements in entertainment licensing there might be to control noise (or public safety), they simply do not apply to all live music making, taking place in all premises. On introduction of this legislation, even if only one licensee providing currently exempt live music making, not presenting a noise concern, did not apply for the optional entertainment element, this legislation, and its spurious basis for justification, would have been directly responsible for preventing live music making. Thus the right of freedom of cultural expression would have been prevented, where there were no specific grounds to do so, by the department of this Government set up to promote culture,

Yours sincerely

---

04 Aug 02 - 08:31 AM (#759561)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

This from the 'Letters to important folk' thread.

Here is the interesting comment by Justice Munby, made during his judicial review of emergency contraception (in case you have not already seen it):

"There would in my judgment be something very seriously wrong, indeed grievously wrong with our system - by which I mean not just our legal system but the entire system by which our policy is governed - if a judge in 2002 were to be compelled by a statute 141 years old to hold that what thousands, hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of ordinary honest, decent, law abiding citizens have been doing day in day out for so many years is and always has been criminal.'

Like making folk music together in pub?

For the full context go to: http://www.doh.gov.uk/ehc/judicialreview.htm

---

05 Aug 02 - 06:26 AM (#759943)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

Reply from my local police.

"I cannot say there have been no complaints in respect of licensed premises. However I can advise that Police have not had to deal with any significant problems at a time, when as far as we were aware, any sporting events were being televised live and in connection with such broadcasts."

---

06 Aug 02 - 12:11 PM (#760679)
Subject: RE: 24 July 2002 Day of Action - PELs
From: The Shambles

The tune is onr that the Yetties use for one of their songs about 'muck' - 'Fling it here. fling it there'. I must confess that I am struggling to remember the original song title. Can anyone help?

Sing It Elswhere

Important to us, is to be able to sing
And thought by many, to be very fine thing
But councils officials, who can count up to three
Are making outlaws of you and me

Sing it here
Sing it there
For the sake of the landlord
Please sing it elsewhere

I bring you news of a terrible fact
Singing in pubs is a criminal act
At the moment you're safe if there's only two
But there's even worse news, in the Parliament due

Sing it here etc

The two in a bar rule is to be taken away
Now no one will be able to play
Folk songs from England or music from France
Without official permission sought well in advance

Sing it here etc

You can't sing, "pubic safety I'm afraid"
It would seem be fine, if your not paid?
It is only the Minister that understands
How the pub is unsafe, when 'money changes hands'

Sing it here etc

And the lads can crowd in, watch their team on TV
Need no, permission or a safe capacity
Can shout all they wish and nothing is wrong
Only, needing permission to burst into song

Sing it here etc

Football supporters with money to burn
Can wake up the neighbours, with no apparent concern
But you and the 'missus', you'd better beware
When you quietly burst into 'Scarborough Fair'

Sing it here etc

I would like you all to write your MP
Its time that they listened to you and to me
I don't know about you but I think this a farce
To hear politicians speak out of their (dispatch box)

Sing it here
Sing it there
For the sake of the landlord
Please sing it elsewhere

http://www.faxyourmp.com/>

---