|
12 Dec 02 - 10:21 AM (#845889) Subject: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new) From: The Shambles House of Commons- Early Day Motion 331. http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=331 LICENSING OF LIVE MUSIC 10.12.02 Whittingdale/John That this House expresses concern that the Licensing Bill proposals to make the performance of live music licensable in pubs and clubs, in places where alcohol is served, in churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship, in schools and colleges, in community centres and village and parish halls, and in private homes and gardens where private parties and weddings may be held will have an enormously detrimental effect on musicians and live music performances; fears that the raising of money for charities by musicians will be seriously compromised; considers it will seriously impinge on the folk community including folk music and traditional folk activities such as morris dancing, wassailing, &c; believes that the penalties for breaking the law of a six month jail sentence of a £20,000 fine are far too draconian; considers it grossly unfair and inconsistent that live music will not be licensable in Scotland but will be in England and Wales; regrets that the Government has decided to replace the anomalous two in a bar rule with a none in a bar rule which will catch all live music performances; believes that the requirement for the provision of entertainment facilities to become licensable which will ensnare music shops, music and dance studios and teachers, represents a totally unacceptable regulatory intrusion into mainstream activities; and calls on the Government to amend the relevant parts of bill in order to remove the iniquities faced by musicians and the music industry as a whole. Please circulate this and get your MP to sign? If you have not a UK MP, send me a PM and you can use mine. Thanks to all....... |
|
12 Dec 02 - 10:24 AM (#845892) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new) From: The Shambles For MP's emails - http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/alms.htm To send a FAX. All you need is your post code - http://www.faxyourmp.com/ |
|
12 Dec 02 - 10:26 AM (#845896) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new) From: Dave Bryant I've already e-mailed my MP - but I got no answer from him on previous ocasions and he never signed up to the the previous EDM either. |
|
12 Dec 02 - 10:29 AM (#845903) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new) From: MMario forget the music industry - have they figured out what an impact this would have on the average person who might occasionally want to sing, period? |
|
12 Dec 02 - 02:36 PM (#846110) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new) From: pavane No, it is all about raising more cash for councils. |
|
12 Dec 02 - 02:40 PM (#846114) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new) From: katlaughing Perhaps we should start a tourist boycott? What else seems so UK than to see people enjoying live music in their local pubs? Who would we email to let them know we may start a boycott? |
|
12 Dec 02 - 02:52 PM (#846120) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new) From: The Shambles E-mail Address(es): kim.howells@culture.gsi.gov.uk |
|
12 Dec 02 - 02:53 PM (#846122) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new) From: katlaughing Thank you, will do it in a few minutes. Did just email Peterborough about the Blue Bell. |
|
12 Dec 02 - 05:46 PM (#846234) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new) From: ET Sorry Shambles. Just spotted this and added a new link DONT LET THE MUIS POLICE GET YOU. Still on second thoughts the more that see this the better. Cheers ET |
|
12 Dec 02 - 06:25 PM (#846263) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new) From: Kenny B (inactive) Having read the motion, I sent the following Email to my local MP for Strathkelvin, John Lyons. Ill PM you if I get a reply "Can you please add your signature to this Early day Motion. Although it is for England it seems that Scottish, Irish and most other EU laws music to be played as entertainment. I dread to think what would happen in Scotland if this type of Licensing was considered here. My friends who entertin in nursing homes would no longer be able to entertain and the residents would no longer be able to be entertained by live entertainers, for the princely sum of a cup of tea and a biscuit. It would be a downright shame for the legistlation proposed to be inflicted our colleagues south of the border. |
|
12 Dec 02 - 07:25 PM (#846314) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: breezy Done , easy, www.faxyourmp.com and theyclaim to ask you if you get a reply in a fortnights time.Its in their interests to respond.I'll probably see mine in person before then, thanks to all you hard working fellows out there, dont let the buggers grind you down. |
|
12 Dec 02 - 07:34 PM (#846323) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: Gareth Mmmm ! - Just to add a little objectivity to this matter.# THe original problem was to remove the question of PEL's away from Councils - and stop them using this as a "cash cow" - You will note that this is exactly what the propsed legislation does. I have no faith in the efforts of the jodsworths to get it right, but I feel that an air of Hysteria has now overcome logic. To make a point, I see no prospect of any local authority trying to impose conditions that will cost them money to try and enforce. I have some experience of trying to get my local authority to enforce noise pollution parameters against a local disco/dance center. No sensible lobbying and such to fine tune is in order, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water !!!! Oh and by the way my MP is fully aware of the concerns. Shambles ad Hamishes facts and opinions are before him. Gareth |
|
12 Dec 02 - 07:54 PM (#846335) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles It was hoped that the original idea would sort out a lot more than what you state Gareth. Did we ever think council officers would prevent 'foot tapping' and prosecute 'swaying'? The only way to prevent this stupidity is to make it impossible. We are being asked to trust the very folk who have proved we cannot trust them. These people are skilled but not to decide for us what is or is not entertainment. Free them from this and let them concentrate on what is safe or unsafe. As for the cash cow, it may well be taken away from the councils, although they are still trying to set their own fees, but will become a blank cheque for Government to raise their annual 'revenue stream'. |
|
12 Dec 02 - 07:58 PM (#846337) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles Can YOU help the Blue Bell Session? |
|
13 Dec 02 - 02:28 AM (#846476) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: ET I have had an idea. Why not using he Licensing Bill to create a new music police force. Wearing bright red uniforms and armed with electronic tuners and metronomes they could have the power to issue £100 fixed penalty notices to any musician who hit a bum note, or exceeded 120 beats per minute. Special attention could be given to piano accordionists, bagpipers and harmonica players with a 50% penalty uplift. Saxophonists would have double penalties. Controls could be introduced and enforced by this lot as to what is played. Jazz could become a serious criminal offence carrying six months, folk music, if the words are not approved, could result in long terms in psychiatric institutions, and as to anyone playing Bach, well, remember how many children he had as a result. This could at a stroke, reduce unemployment for musicians, increase government revenue and impose total control. |
|
13 Dec 02 - 07:12 AM (#846549) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: GUEST,pavane If the objective is to stop councils using it as a cash cow, then Camden will be disappointed. They already warned that licences would have to go UP to administer the system, didn't they? |
|
13 Dec 02 - 07:20 AM (#846552) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: IanC I've been corresponding with my (con) MP, Oliver Heald on the issue of the new bill. He seems quite incensed and is up for signing this, as well as the churches EDM (208). Can't see his signature on either yet, though. :-) |
|
17 Dec 02 - 12:21 AM (#848648) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles Despite the amazing response to the petition, EDM 331 seems to be stuck on 30 names! Perhaps we just have to work a little harder on our elected representitives, who will, after all, have the final say? For MP's emails - http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/alms.htm To send a FAX. All you need is your post code - http://www.faxyourmp.com/ |
|
18 Dec 02 - 06:25 PM (#849901) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles The Party make up of the current 41 names, is interesting. Con33 Lab 2 Lib 4 Plaid Cymru 1 Ulster Unionist 1 |
|
19 Dec 02 - 03:00 AM (#850150) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: Liz the Squeak Interesting that it carries a stricter sentence than causing actual bodily harm. Singing in a group in a bar = 6 months imprisonment/£20,000 fine Fractured skull = £400 fine + compensation of £50 Death by drunk driving = £500 fine and slapped wrists, don't do it again. LTS |
|
19 Dec 02 - 01:45 PM (#850531) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles 'This guitar kills'. 50 MPs names, but still only 4 from New Labour? What was this all about going out and listening to the wishes of the electorate? They don't appear to be listening to all those voters of all persausions who are signing up to the petition's wording? |
|
19 Dec 02 - 07:41 PM (#850789) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: Nemesis PLEASE put the details of this protest event in your calendar and pass it on to as many people as possible, and please attend if you can. Just in case .. the House of Lords has confirmed that carol singing will be a licensable event (same license that a Landlord has to apply for! Monday 27 January 2003, 1:00 PM Parliament Square, London Mozart's Birthday Silent Protest To illustrate the apalling impact that the Government's Licensing Bill will have on live and community music-making. Bring your instrument (AND A GAG -medical-type mouth-coverings work well), but don't play it. |
|
19 Dec 02 - 08:08 PM (#850813) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles Dr Howells giving way??? Commons Debate Churches and Church halls (Licensing). 2. Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge): What estimate she has made of the costs that will be incurred by churches and church halls as a result of the provisions contained in the Licensing Bill. 4. Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry): What representations she has received from church organisations concerning the Licensing Bill. [85572] The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): Any costs for churches and church halls under the provisions of the Licensing Bill as it stands would depend on the licensable activities, if any, which are undertaken and their frequency, and whether temporary or permanent permissions are sought. The Archbishops Council of the Church of England wrote to me to express its concern that the provision of entertainment in churches outside Greater London would be brought under the licensing regime by the Licensing Bill. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will accept that while I cannot provide them with a solution today, the Government have made a commitment to reconsider our position on this issue and will announce our conclusions as soon as possible. Mr. Randall : I am very grateful to the Minister for seeing sense. The sooner we get the new regulations, the better, as that part of the legislation would best be described with the words that he used to describe certain types of modern art. Dr. Howells: I couldn't possibly comment. Mr. Boswell: We have the answer for which we were hoping. Would the Minister accept as representative the comments of my constituent, Mr. Williams, who is chairman of the trustees of the Holy Sepulchre restoration trust in Northampton? In particular, he points out that the use of his church, which is an 11th century crusader round church, is as important to the schools that perform there as to the church which brings in the takings. Will the hon. Gentleman give us an absolute assurance—or as absolute an assurance as he can—that nine centuries of history are not going to be sacrificed to nine minutes of ministerial inadvertence? Dr. Howells: I will certainly do my utmost to ensure that that does not happen. If I may, however, I ask the hon. Gentleman to hold his fire until we have reconsidered our position on the matter. Alan Howarth (Newport, East): Can I—I think I can—congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on intervening to restore common sense and ensure that, in an uncharacteristic excess of bureaucratic zeal, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not wipe out the indispensable tradition of music-making in churches? Will they go further and impress on the Arts Council the need to support church and cathedral music positively, just as English Heritage has supported the conservation of the physical fabric of our churches and cathedrals? Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend has fought long and hard to help church and cathedral music wherever he can. I reassure him that I have no intention of doing it any harm whatever, and that I will do all that I can through regulation to ensure that it thrives. Mr. Gordon Marsden (Blackpool, South): Having met a group of clergy in Blackpool on Friday, may I tell my hon. Friend how welcome were the words of Baroness Blackstone in another place on Thursday? Does he appreciate the extent to which many places of worship depend on the activities and income that come from such events, the licensing of which is now to be reviewed? Will his Department do everything that it can to make sure that a perfectly reasonable attempt to correct an existing licensing anomaly does not become an unfair and intolerable burden on places of worship? Dr. Howells: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I also thank him for the work that he has done to make my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me very much aware of the circumstances that obtain both in his constituency and in those of many other right hon. and hon. Members. Nick Harvey (North Devon): Does the Minister agree that, in the absence of the guidance promised in the Bill, it is quite to hard to decipher the Department's intentions on church concerts or anything else? Do we need to license activities in church at all, given that there has not been a serious public order offence in a church since the time of Thomas à Becket, and does he not accept that, even if he waived the fee, the application process would in any event be an unwelcome layer of bureaucracy for already hard-pressed volunteers? Dr. Howells: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point very well. I hope that he will accept the statement that I made earlier. Dr. Jack Cunningham (Copeland): Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement will be widely welcomed, not least in rural areas where churches and church halls sometimes provide the only facility in which cultural, educational and musical activities can take place? They are therefore an essential part of the fabric of rural communities for those as well as other purposes. Will he ensure that, when he reconsiders the matter, churches and church halls are finally completely exempted from the proposals? Dr. Howells: I get my right hon. Friend's message loud and clear. I shall certainly consider what he said. Mr. John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford): I welcome the Minister's statement as far as it goes, but does he accept that a Bill that will require anything up to 15,000 parish churches—not to mention the places of worship of other faiths—to apply for a licence at a not insignificant cost cannot possibly be described, as the Secretary of State has described it, as deregulatory, and that anything less than the continuation of the existing exemption and a complete abandonment of the proposals in the Bill will be unacceptable? Dr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that, for a long time, the Conservative Government had a chance to get rid of the rule that has existed for 40 years which says that churches inside London have to apply for and receive a licence for the playing and singing of secular music. I hear what he says, but I hope that he will accept that we do not need lessons from the Conservative party on getting rid of the regulations. Mr. Whittingdale: I point out to the Minister that the existing exemption for churches was granted by Parliament in 1982, under the previous Conservative Government. However, given his willingness to see reason this afternoon, perhaps he would like to consider another aspect of the Licensing Bill, which is that covering licensing for the live performance of music. Will he explain how a Bill that will require thousands of live musicians to perform only in licensed venues when there is at present no requirement for a licence is deregulatory? Mr. Speaker: Order. That goes far beyond the original question. Ends |
|
20 Dec 02 - 08:54 AM (#851085) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: DMcG Giving up on licenses for Church premises is welcome in its way, but could actually damage the E-petition because there is no way of demonstrating the extent of support for the other items in the e-petition if this one aspect is resolved. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 09:03 AM (#851090) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles True but if they do come up with a fudge for the Church issue, will it not make the obectives of the Bill even harder to justify for all the events that remain covered. Especially when these may take place in far safer places than churches? |
|
20 Dec 02 - 09:24 AM (#851100) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: DMcG And from the same debate Shambles quoted above: Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): Is it not a triumph of stultifying bureaucracy over freedom of expression that the ludicrous three-in-a-bar rule should be replaced with a none-in-the-bar rule? What on earth has the Minister's Department got against live music? Dr. Howells: It is the two-in-a-bar rule, not the three-in-a-bar rule, but I know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I can assure him that, as a great supporter of live music and especially of some of the brands of music that are sung in pubs in Somerset, I will do all that I can to ensure that such venues are strengthened, not weakened. Is this a different Dr Howells to the one we know and love? |
|
20 Dec 02 - 02:23 PM (#851282) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles Yes the concept may change but the bullshit remains. The names of the 4 brave new labour MPs who have signed. Clark/Helen Corbyn/Jeremy Marris/Rob Owen/Albert |
|
20 Dec 02 - 03:25 PM (#851317) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/templates/NewsTemplate_1.asp?recid=1592&table=news&bimage=news&issue=7295&count=5 Above link to Licensing re-think, in the Church Times. |
|
23 Dec 02 - 01:42 PM (#852647) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles Perhaps during the holiday period, you may have the time to put into words your thoughts on alla spects of the Licensing Bill to your MP? Perhaps we just have to work a little harder on our elected representitives, who will, after all, have the final say? For MP's emails - http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/alms.htm To send a FAX. All you need is your post code - http://www.faxyourmp.com/ |
|
01 Jan 03 - 02:44 AM (#856449) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles To enable us to work harder on our MPs, Hamish Birchall has prepared some 'ammo' in the form of a (long) challenge to the letters that the DCMS are sending out to answer the concerns expressed to our MPs. PELs for beginners I am afraid that your MP may have to receive many letters before they eventually will understand exactly what is going on. Only when they do finally understand, will they be of any use. You can also point them to the over 16,500 voters (so far) who do understand. |
|
05 Jan 03 - 04:06 PM (#859348) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles It would appear that the response from our MPs is patchy at best. Some do not even appear to have acknowledged messages from and requests made to them by their constituents. If you have written or are writing to your MP and are having problems of this or some other nature, perhaps this information and their name and contstituency can be posted here and folk that share this MP can also write? Now that over 20,000 signatures appear on a similarly worded petition, it is time I think that more pressure was exerted on our MPs. To sign EDM 331 and to start to reflect the serious concern of so many of the voting public over this Bill, which will very soon be coming before Commons. What has been your experience of writing to your MP? |
|
06 Jan 03 - 05:38 AM (#859637) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: DMcG I wrote to mine (Nigel Beard, Lab) about the previous EDM. No answer. I wrote again. He wrote back saying he would sign, and didn't. I wrote to him about this one. He replied saying he would sign it if he agreed it was accurate criticism of the bill. After a week, I wrote again, saying as he hadn't signed I assume he didn't agree it was accurate and could he tell me his personal criticisms (and please don't bother to sed me the standard DCMS reply because I've ageady seen it.) By the way, the e-Petition was 8000-ish, had he seen it? I am still waiting for a further response. |
|
06 Jan 03 - 05:50 AM (#859640) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: GUEST How can I find out if my MP has signed or not? |
|
06 Jan 03 - 09:13 AM (#859719) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: GUEST Can someone tell me how to find out if my MP has signed or not? |
|
06 Jan 03 - 11:59 AM (#859854) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=331 |
|
09 Jan 03 - 09:23 AM (#862526) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles Clark/Helen Corbyn/Jeremy Cox/Tom Dobson/Frank Follett/Barbara Hurst/Alan Jones/Martyn Marris/Rob Owen/Albert Taylor/David The above are the few Labour MP to sign. 72 MPs have now signed EDM 331. |
|
15 Jan 03 - 06:21 PM (#867827) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles 83 Members of Parliament have now signed. 39,224, Members of the public have now signed the petition. The following are the only Labour MPs to sign EDM 331. 3 more have signed since 9th January Clark/Helen Corbyn/Jeremy Cox/Tom Dobson/Frank Follett/Barbara Hendrick/Mark Hurst/Alan Jones/Martyn Khabra/Piara S Mann/John Marris/Rob Owen/Albert Taylor/David |
|
16 Jan 03 - 06:13 AM (#868132) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: GUEST,vectis at work |
|
16 Jan 03 - 06:14 AM (#868134) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: GUEST,vectis at work OOOps sorry bout that. My MP signed today. Good lad him. |
|
16 Jan 03 - 06:24 AM (#868137) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: Schantieman 93 signed now. Mine (Clare Curtis-Thomas) hasn't yet but keeps sending me leters telling me about the progress of her enquires. I'm now going to e-mail her to ask her (again) to sign it. Keep you posted Steve |
|
17 Jan 03 - 01:15 PM (#868863) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles 95 and now 18 Labour ones. |
|
17 Jan 03 - 01:17 PM (#868869) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: Schantieman Apologies to mine - she's Claire, not Clare. S |
|
17 Jan 03 - 02:49 PM (#868957) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: DMcG I've had an email from mine today, offering to send me Kim Howells letter. I replied as follows: Thank you for your response. As I said in my email dated 20-December-2002, I have already seen the standard letter from Kim Howells and do not think it would of benefit to have another copy. You will note that the standard letter does not address the specific subject of my 13th January, namely the apparent conflict between the advice you have been given ("Morris dancing will not be limited in any way") and the clear requirement in the bill - included verbatim in my last email - that it will require a licence if performed at any premises, defined in clause 184 as follows: "premises" means any place and includes a vehicle, vessel or moveable structure; ("Premises", you will note, covers very much more than pubs and therefore whether or not it is easy for a publican to gain a licence is by no means the complete story.) I therefore have to ask again how you reconcile this apparent contradiction, quoting clauses where you believe an exception is made. |
|
17 Jan 03 - 03:59 PM (#869011) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: Alice How many MPs in total are there? What percentage of all MPs signed the EDM? |
|
17 Jan 03 - 04:13 PM (#869032) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles State of the parties at 4 October 2002 Labour 410 Conservative 163 Liberal Democrat 53 Scottish National Party/Plaid Cymru 9 (SNP 5/PC 4) Ulster Unionist 6 Democratic Unionist 5 Sinn Fein 4 (Have not taken their seats) Social Democratic & Labour 3 Independent 1 Independent Conservative 1 Speaker & 3 Deputies 4 (Do not normally vote) Total 659 |
|
21 Jan 03 - 08:43 AM (#871359) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: IanC e-mailed Oliver Heald to remind him that this one needs signing still ... Dear Oliver Heald Thank you for your letter about the Licensing Bill, the contents of which I find most heartening. I was wondering if you have yet signed the Early Day Motion EDM331 which effectively expresses what you have said in your letter. If not, perhaps you would consider it - and signing the online petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?2inabar&1 which has a very similar wording and now has over 45,000 signatures. Thank you Ian Chandler The e-mail your MP link in (which one?) another thread is quite useful. :-) |
|
22 Jan 03 - 04:20 AM (#872048) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: Dave Bryant I have at last received a letter back from my MP (Clive Efford, Eltham) saying that he will look at the EDM, but he still does not appear to have signed up yet. |
|
22 Jan 03 - 04:58 AM (#872057) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: IanC 105 signatures now. Oliver Heald signed last night. Result! Is there anyone from Stevenage who might encourage Barbara Follett to sign? I don't think she will, but I'd like to see as I'm corresponding with her on behalf of Stevenage Sword Dancers. :-) |
|
22 Jan 03 - 05:04 AM (#872060) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: DMcG Barbara Follett has signed! There are now 21 Labour signatories. The pressure seems to be having some effect (though my own MP still has to be persuaded to sign.) |
|
22 Jan 03 - 05:11 AM (#872065) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: IanC Thanks! Barbara seemed to be toeing the Kim Howells line when she replied to my fax about sword dancing. However, her husband Ken is a noted local musician so I wondered whether there might be some possibility of shifting her! Excellent. :-) |
|
22 Jan 03 - 05:44 AM (#872070) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: clansfolk Gordon Marsden MP - Blackpool South still hasn't signed - 3 faxes sent - today a proforma reply with the extract from Hansards attached (dated 17th Dec 2002) quoting the good Doctors assurances that he would look at the proposals and how they affect Religious bodies - nothing refering to comments I had made about traditional music and dance! - Gordon won't get away that easy! new letter being drafted complimenting him on what's he's done so far but quoting Kim's Komments (sic) since that date and his admittance that most forms of traditional music and dance will be affected - and asking again for Mr Marsden to sign 331 - In Blackpool which I have seen change over the last 50+ years from a family resort - to a Pub Town - I feel that Tradition is being a sacrifice for 24hr drinking. Morris on.................... The Barman |
|
22 Jan 03 - 06:26 AM (#872081) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles 105 now. We really must try and inform our MP's of the real implications contained in the detail of the Bill. One way of doing this is to ask very specific questions on the effect aspects of the Bill and to make sure that your MP supplies you with a specific and satisfactory answer. And to keep on and on until they do. |
|
22 Jan 03 - 06:46 AM (#872090) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: Pied Piper There are 150 Labour MPs that cannot? (or will not) sign EDMs and vote against the government. I don't no if this is a legal thing but somebody told me that if you get a "bag carrying" job in a Ministry (like my MP Ian Stewart) you get an extra 50 grand expenses. PP |
|
22 Jan 03 - 02:23 PM (#872362) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles The EDM was started by the official opposition but signing it is not a vote against the government, but I see what you mean. It could and will be seen by some be seen as supporting the opposition. But as nearly 50,000 of us voters have signed up to the wording and sentiments of this EDM, any MP who does not sign for the reasons that he may be unpopular with the 'whips' does rather risk being unpopular with those whose vote they may soon badly need. The EDM is just a device to raise the profile of an issue but the E petition has rather done this. So it is less important to have the amount of MP's names as was on the last one, but it is vital that we keep on informing them, not only of our concerns for the Bill but also of the risk they face if they are not seen to be reflecting this popular concern. They will wish to be seen as being on the winning side. I like to think that whatever happens now, that in the future we are not going to allow the things we hold dear to be treated as badly as we have been prepared to let them be treated in the past. |
|
22 Jan 03 - 02:28 PM (#872364) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles The signs are quite good, how many of us have written to their MP before? |
|
23 Jan 03 - 01:52 AM (#872613) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles The MU's and the lawyers position and the full DCMS reply can be found via the following link to Graham Dixon's petition site. http://pub22.bravenet.com/forum/fetch.php?id=9982048&usernum=1824620545 |
|
26 Jan 03 - 06:50 PM (#875433) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=465 The above link to EDM 465, one worded specifically for concerns for jazz, will show quite a different party grouping among its supporting 73 MPs. Perhaps more of our spineless Labour MPs will be prepared to sign up this one? |
|
27 Jan 03 - 01:26 PM (#875888) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles 111 MP's names on EDM 331. 56,978 voter's names on th E petition. |
|
31 Jan 03 - 09:02 AM (#879063) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles 126 MPs 62,662 voters on the petition. http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=331 |
|
14 Feb 03 - 07:16 AM (#890193) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles 136 MPs Over 71,000 on the petition. Time for some more letters to our MPs? |
|
16 Feb 03 - 05:17 PM (#891771) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles The following from Hamish Birchall Another website has downloadable copies of the Performer-Lawyer group analysis and rebuttal of the latest DCMS spin about the Licensing Bill (MS Word and PDF files): http://www.adac-records.co.uk/licensing-bill/kim-howells/ This is the direct link for the Performer-Lawyer group's analysis in MS Word format: http://www.adac-records.co.uk/licensing-bill/kim-howells/McLetPLG009.doc Many backbench Labour MPs have uncritically accepted the latest soothing words from Howells and the DCMS. The Performer-Lawyer response is the antidote. It is essential reading for those who wish to maintain pressure on MPs. |
|
27 Feb 03 - 02:35 PM (#899870) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles 142 MP's names. 75,614 signatures on the petition. |
|
28 Feb 03 - 11:32 AM (#900392) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles For the answers to the 20 myths of Dr Howells, see the following thread. MP's repies to your Emails |
|
13 Mar 03 - 06:06 AM (#908905) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles 151 MP's names. See if your MP's name is there yet. http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=331 |
|
13 Mar 03 - 01:09 PM (#909199) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: John J I'm delighted that my MP (Graham Brady, con) is supporting our cause. He has written to me twice now, and is clearly not just paying lip service to this matter. John |
|
19 Mar 03 - 07:34 AM (#913282) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles 153 MP's names now. |
|
24 Mar 03 - 06:01 AM (#916904) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles 154 MPs have now signed, but like us all - they will probably have other things on their minds at the moment. Sadly however, the Bill still marches on and today Monday 24 March will go to the House of Commons. We are only going to get this one chance, so despite the bad timing, we are going to have to go all-out and make the most of it. |
|
25 Mar 03 - 05:53 AM (#917740) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: The Shambles The full 24 March debate in Hansard, on the following site. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/cm030324/debtext/30324-14.htm#30324-14_head0 |
|
29 Mar 03 - 02:17 AM (#921081) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: Richard Bridge I have written at length to all the committee MPs and the Joint Committe on Human Rights. I don't know if it'll get put up on does4you. |
|
04 May 06 - 08:09 PM (#1733309) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: Mr Happy Early Day Motions aren't actually debated in the chamber - they're simply a way for MPs to make written statements on any subject they feel to be significant. "Nothing comes of them, but they're an important barometer of what's going on in the country," says Bob [Russell: Lib Dem MP for Colchester, See here: http://www.thedonkey.org/Lines/MP_Colchester.html]. http://www.thedonkey.org/Lines/MP_Colchester.html]. "They draw the attention of our elected representatives to matters of interest and concern. ++++++++++++++++++ So this means: · All our efforts in diverse ways were for naught? · There's NO DEMOCRACY! In our country? · We must continue to be OFFENDERS??? |
|
04 May 06 - 08:36 PM (#1733327) Subject: RE: Common's Early Day Motion 331 (new)(PEL) From: Mr Happy "They draw the attention of our elected representatives to matters of interest and concern. [& Then they instantly forget all about these matters? & aren쳌ft compelled to act ion these issues further?] This thread is closed for now because it has been the frequent target of a spammer. If you wish to contribute more on the topic ask a moderator to reopen it. ---mudelf |