|
02 Jan 03 - 04:38 PM (#857401) Subject: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: clansfolk If the proposed new "Pel" goes through many singers dancers musicians etc will have to find another pastime (and excuse to go to the local pub every few days!) what about helping our local council with the new PEL restrictions?????? As you know the government has decided that Television transmissions eg Football Matches, Concerts and jukeboxes will NOT require a license (these are deamed "safe" and "quiet" when compared to rowdy folk singers and clog laden Mossis dancers) HOWEVER - anyone chanting support songs - joining in with televised/jukebox songs etc WILL be contravening the restrictions and all such instances should be reported to the councils enforcement officers - WHO MUST take action? Maybe then they will see how stupid the new restrictions are.... just a thought? Pete |
|
02 Jan 03 - 08:12 PM (#857563) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: Nemesis A-AR...S S..EN..A-AL! Sorry! Seruously, that's a good idea .. we have a dreadful 'orrible rowdy pub up the road .. spilling out vomiting, chanting, pissing in the gutter after one of Big-screen extravaganzas! Also, hopefully council enforcement officers would therefore be too busy tied up dealing with these events .. to deal with any complaints re. music sessions? |
|
03 Jan 03 - 04:36 PM (#857976) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: clansfolk And if they don't take action - we could always have the landlord put the TV on (no sound) during folk sessions......... and chant traditional songs together!!!!!!!! PJS |
|
03 Jan 03 - 04:42 PM (#857981) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: GUEST,Peter from Essex Sods law dictates that football chants would be categorised as spontaneous and therefore exempt. Of course if people started swaying that would be another matter entirely. |
|
03 Jan 03 - 04:50 PM (#857984) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: clansfolk I always sway at a session..................... but that might be the beer not the music! |
|
03 Jan 03 - 04:55 PM (#857992) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: The Shambles I have still to find the word spontaneous used or defined in the Bill or the guidance notes. Perhaps the DCMS do not know the word does not appears in their Bill? |
|
03 Jan 03 - 05:03 PM (#857999) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: DMcG Brilliant, clansfolk! I have a portable TV with a 2-inch screen and headphones. I'll take that to every session! |
|
11 Jan 03 - 06:40 AM (#864257) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: clansfolk Here's another string to our bow re. Football Supporters etc watching broadcasts - Hear we go Hear we go hear we go................(sic) FROM the MU................ Pubs fined over dancing drinkers By Adam Blenford, Evening Standard 22 November 2002 Each week thousands of drinkers flock to the West End's two huge Pitcher and Piano pubs as part of a night out in London. In these smart modern premises, music and drinking go hand in hand. But now the pubs' owners have been fined £5,000 after small groups of customers were spotted dancing - in breach of licensing laws which ban "rhythmic moving". Westminster council inspectors took the Pitcher and Piano to task after they spotted a total of 20 people enjoying themselves a little too much on three occasions. The first time, they caught four people dancing. They returned later that day to catch five people in the act. On another occasion, 11 drinkers were spotted indulging in what the council described as "rhythmic moving". Wolverhampton and Dudley Breweries, which runs the central London's two Pitcher and Piano pubs on William IV Street off the Strand and Dean Street in Soho, insists that signs on the walls at the pubs warn customers that dancing is banned. Bar staff are also instructed to turn the music down if they spot a rhythmic outbreak. But the inspectors decided that patrons of the Pitcher and Piano were routinely breaking the terms of the pub's licence, which does not allow dancing. Wolverhampton and Dudley pleaded guilty at a London magistrates court and were fined £2,500 for each offence, plus costs of £1,600. Derek Andrews, Wolverhampton and Dudley's managed house boss, said: "We have spent ages trying to stop people dancing. We have signs up everywhere, managers instruct customers, we turn the music down, rearrange the furniture and so on. "On a personal note, I would like to say that, to the best of my knowledge, spontaneous dancing is not in the top 10 list of great social ills of our time." Westminster council has also served two written warnings to another pub in Wardour Street about people found "swaying". Dancing is only allowed if premises have been granted a public entertainment licence - and precisely what this means was spelt out by Bob Currie, Westminster's director of the community protection department, in a letter quoted in The Publican. "Dancing could be described as the rhythmic moving of the legs, arms and body usually changing positions within the floor space available and whether or not accompanied by musical support." Westminster council further explained today: "Premises providing music and dancing are required as a matter of law to obtain a licence. "For this reason our inspectors visit premises. We need to observe whether a premises is encouraging entertainment and encouraging people to dance. The two premises of Pitcher and Piano were advised that they were encouraging music and dancing and that they should apply for a licence, they did not." However, the prosecution is likely to confuse drinkers and anger publicans, coming as the Government pushes through plans to and allow pubs to open for 24 hours a day. Westminster council have opposed the extension of licensing laws, complaining that longer opening hours will attract more noise and crime to central London. STAND STILL AND BE QUIET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TWO IN A BAR - UK |
|
11 Jan 03 - 06:48 AM (#864260) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: Pied Piper I've heard this "spontaneous" rumour is it true? PP |
|
11 Jan 03 - 07:01 AM (#864268) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: clansfolk The rumour more than likely came from "The house" as most MPs don't (or can't be bothered to) understand the propsals....... and speak from their seats! from the MU...................... see BOLD The Bill does capture private performance where performers charge for their performance, or private performance by amateurs for charity or fundraising purposes, or for profit. Last November, the lawyer advising the Arts Council provided them with an opinion to the effect that corporate hospitality events were captured by the Bill. This contradicts the government's statement in the Explanatory Notes that such events were not covered. Music shops would be caught where musician/endorsees make public appearances to demonstrate musical instruments. Church choir performances are licensable, unless their performance is part of a religious meeting or service. School plays are licensable if they are 'to any extent' public, or if private, if raising money for charity, or if any charge is made by any person concerned in the organisation or management of the play, and that charge is paid on behalf of some of or all those being entertained. The Bill contains no exemption for, or definition of, 'ad hoc' or 'spontaneous' performances: as worded, the Bill renders licensable any vocal music or instrumental music, or any combination of the two, performed in public with at least some intention to entertain. The Bill contains an exemption for recorded music (provided it is incidental to other activities - like drinking alcohol - that are not licensable entertainments or facilities). Pub jukeboxes are therefore exempt, no matter how powerful the amplification, unless they were provided in conjunction with a dance floor. Pete |
|
11 Jan 03 - 07:03 AM (#864269) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: DMcG Kim Howells always claims "spontaneous" music is exempt, but the MU finds nothing in the proposed bill to support that interpretation. My reading is that such music is not exempt but, if truly spontaneous, it cannot be predicted and therefore it is sheer chance if a PEL-inspector is around to stop it. The music is not protected, merely unlikely to be penalised. In any case, it is certainly arguable that football chanting to a televised match is highly predictable, if not certain, and therefore it cannot really be classed as spontaneous. (Should some legal-eagle insist it the fact is it not certain that make it spontaneous, I am quite prepared to toss five dice before every session and cancel the session if they all show a six.) |
|
11 Jan 03 - 07:15 AM (#864274) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: McGrath of Harlow "Dancing could be described as the rhythmic moving of the legs, arms and body usually changing positions within the floor space available and whether or not accompanied by musical support." That definition would appear to mean that walking and running must count as dancing. On the other hand you could argue that since "hands legs and body" have to be moving, Irish step dancing, where the hands are held at the side of the body without moving, is not covered. Perhaps that's where the tradition of doing it that way originates... |
|
11 Jan 03 - 07:21 AM (#864280) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: clansfolk don't the hands move along with the body??? Well if the government can be pedants so can! :-) Pete |
|
11 Jan 03 - 07:34 AM (#864287) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: McGrath of Harlow Are but relative movement is what is involved. Otherwise you have to say we're all moving as the Earth rotates on its axis and goes round the Sun and the Sun is swept round as the Glaxy turns ... Einsyein rules. The definition wold also mean that if you are palying an instrument such as a guitar which involves rhythmic movement, when you start tapping your feet while you are playing, that counts as dancing. |
|
11 Jan 03 - 07:45 AM (#864291) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: clansfolk Playing a guitar and tapping your feet? - NOT ALLOWED!! Don't the arms move slightly from back to front whilst Irish dancing - I'm sure they did in CanalDance - sorry Riverdance... maybe "the snoops" could be issued with devices to measure the amount of movement - funometers? I just saw an Irish dancer lift her arms above her head - must be a Scottish influence? (The new proposals don't apply there) What a sad state of affairs it all is - bring back the 50's........ O no they band Rock 'n' Roll from radio then (so me Dad tells me :-)) cheers, Pete |
|
11 Jan 03 - 08:23 AM (#864314) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: allanwill I am absolutely dumbstruck, hornswaggle, flabbergasted by all these PEL threads. That article posted by clansfolk has now convinced me - England has been taken over by aliens from another planet, who have all had frontal lobotomies. Someone should take these poloticians to a pub,put some bottles in front of them, get them pissed and see what happens! Allan |
|
11 Jan 03 - 04:19 PM (#864661) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: Richard Bridge There is no "spontaneous" exemption in the words of the bill. Fact. |
|
11 Jan 03 - 08:14 PM (#864837) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: clansfolk errr ,,,, correct Richard Pete the barman........... TWO IN A BAR - UK |
|
12 Jan 03 - 08:07 AM (#865087) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: The Shambles How about 'impromptu' then? |
|
12 Jan 03 - 10:59 AM (#865171) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: clansfolk it's an anagram of "not without a licence" !!!! or maybe the man who prompted the "tu in a bar" rule? basically it ain't an exemption to the proposal "they're ALL dead Dave.........." Pete |
|
12 Jan 03 - 12:06 PM (#865242) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: McGrath of Harlow Talk about "spontaneous" and "impromptu" and so forth is beside the point. What Howells or anybody else says about the intention of the Act in Parliament or anywhere else is completely irrelevant. All that matters in court is what the Act actually says. Simon Hoggart gave an illustration of this in a Guardian column this week about where he explained how the late Roy Jenkins, who had as Home Secretary steered the Obscene Publications Act though Parliament, found the Act being used in a court case to stop publication of Lady Chatterley's Lover, clean contradictory to what he had intended. In fact he had reassured the House of Commons that the Act could never be used to suppress serious literature: In English law it is forbidden to have legislators explain in court what they were trying to do. Instead the court has to consider only the words which appear in the statute. Penguin's counsel decided to give it a go. Jenkins appeared in the witness box for the defence. His evidence lasted a few seconds. He was asked if it was his act under which the publishers were being charged, and he replied: "Yes, and if I had thought for one moment that this book..." The prosecution's furious objection was upheld. But the point had been made. No wonder the jury cleared the book and its publisher. But I can't see Kim Howells having either the inclination or the savoir faire to do anything like that for us in similar circumstances. |
|
12 Jan 03 - 01:49 PM (#865292) Subject: RE: PEL UK - Unemployed Artist Dancer - look From: The Shambles The two in the bar exemption was kept in 1982 because it recognised that on liquor licesed premises, the only place where the exmption applies, the public's safety was ensured and that an additional 'entertainment' licence was just not reqiured. Local authorities using it to demonstrate that an addtional one persons does make the premises unsafe, was not forseen. Dr Howells has been unable or unwilling to challenge the many abuses by local authorities under this legislation. That is why this Bill's uncertain terms will not protect anyone from local authorities who will claim anything they do to be for the public's safety. The Bill must not become law until everyone DOES understand what it means and is is agreement. |