|
28 Jan 03 - 10:26 AM (#876580) Subject: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Mr Happy Just seen this on folkinfo's forum: http://www.folkinfo.org/topic.asp?topic_id=321&pagenum=1&reverse=False&X=12 comments? |
|
28 Jan 03 - 11:25 AM (#876625) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: treewind All the necessary health, safety and noise legislation exists for any building where the public are admitted for any purpose. Why should live music require anything extra? Fundamental principle: The performance of live music should not requre a license. Period. In Scotland there is no such document as a PEL. They are managing perfectly well without it. =========== Yes, I've seen the "Stage" article. It's not what he says, but what he doesn't say, that matters. For example he doesn't explain why there is an exemption for TV screens in pubs. No safety requirements, no noise limits, nothing. (real reason: the broadcast industry is so rich and powerful that it can control the government. Have you a better explanation?) He doesn't mention that many premises other than pubs, i.e. which don't sell alcohol will have to apply for a license when they never did before. Do you think they'll get it for free? How is that deregulatory? He doesn't point out that many pubs will not want to pay for an annual inspection by the council plus the cost of work to comply with needless conditions the council will impose, just so it can host a folk club or singaround once a month. (don't tell me the councils won't behave like that, it's already happened) He doesn't point out that unlike the magistrates who issue licenses now the councils have a huge financial interest in the whole process and are always desperate for new revenue streams. How is that going to promote a fair system? Don't be taken in. Anahata |
|
28 Jan 03 - 11:41 AM (#876637) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: GUEST Thanks Mr Happy. Is this a troll? The originator of the thread opened with "I'm posting this here, as I'm sure I'd get my head bitten off if I posted it at mudcat" and I think was looking for just some quiet gentle debate. I just hope people do read the whole thread at folkinfo, not just the first post or assume that because of the title everyone at folkinfo believes we are over-reacting to the PEL legislation. My own views, posted in that thread are very much in line with those expressed by Anahata here. Jon |
|
28 Jan 03 - 11:47 AM (#876642) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Pied Piper I wonder if they've read the applicable sections of the bill, I have and it worries me considerably. Thanks for the thread MrH. All the Best PP |
|
28 Jan 03 - 11:48 AM (#876646) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Dave Bryant We might also find that just the cost of a basic license will drive many of the smaller pubs to close, and these are often the very pubs where folk clubs meet. After all big pubs with loud music which get packed out are not likely to want clubs or sessions. In the area (SE London / NE Kent) which I live, the following pubs have already ceased to exist in the last few years: The Yorkshire Grey, Eltham - now MacDonalds The Garden Gate, Downham - now MacDonalds The Sawyers, Bromley Common - now MacDonalds The Crossways, Sidcup - now Burger King The Plough, Bromley Common - now wine warehouse The Two Brewers, Otford - now private house The Star, Brasted Chart - now private house The King's Arms, Brasted - now office building The Rorty Crankle, Plaxtol - now private house There are many others which have gone - a lot of them were pubs that I wouldn't have wanted to drink in, but the trend is there. With the value of houses in the South-East, it is often a cheap way for a firm or private individual to aquire a reasonably sized property at a bargain price. When all the little pubs have ceased to exist, or become mainly restaurants, where will we hold our sessions ? |
|
28 Jan 03 - 11:49 AM (#876647) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: McGrath of Harlow "I'm posting this here, as I'm sure I'd get my head bitten off if I posted it at Mudcat." Is it biting Ed's head off to say that that is just nonsense? Disagreeing with people isn't "biting their head off", and the tone of discourse on this has always stayed pretty courteous towards each other, if not always toward Kim Howells. Anyway, I'm posting my reply here because I can't remember my password for folk info off the top of my head. Obviously they aren't likely to use the full £20,000 and six months jail on us, but the fact remains that as the Bill currently stands, if we play or sing in any place which doesn't not have a music licence we are committing a criminal offence, and that is the maximum penalty for that criminal offence. Of singing or playing a musical instrument. And no Kim Howells isn't a demon in human form. He is a cynical politician who has found that shooting his mouth off can get him media attention. Having made a specific and direct promise that sessions and singaround will not need to have any kind of licence cover he has refused to incorporate this in the law, and so ensured himself further press coverage. "There's no such thing as bad publicity." Well, there is, but annoying us doesn't constitute it. If there are really only ten pubs in the country where there have been any problems, as Ed suggests, it strikes me as strange that two of them are within a few miles of where I live. No hysteria, quite right. But firm determination to make them change the bill so that instead of making things worse it makes it better. Which is what the bloody thing is supposed to be doing! And remember, what matters is not what Kim Howells says the law means, but what the Act itself says; and, in a way even more important, it isn't so much what the courts might decide that matters, it's what the brewers and the landlords and the people running coffee bars and so forth might be worried that the courts would decide. Under the existing law very few cases have actually gone to court, people just roll over when threatened, understandably enough given the possible penalties. We have to have whatever exemptions we need written into the Act if music is going to be allowed to extend the way it could. |
|
28 Jan 03 - 11:49 AM (#876648) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: GUEST Pied Piper, looks you have done what I feared people would do. The is no f****ing "THEY" at folkinfo. READ THE WHOLE THREAD and then pass a balanced opinion. Jon |
|
28 Jan 03 - 12:13 PM (#876671) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Gareth Dave - Closure of Public Houses carry's on - but I think we should be looking at the way the financial structure of the Brewing Industry is forcing pubs to close. I see no conection between PEL's and closures. To the main point - Those campaigning against PEL's started off complaining about councils acting unreasonably, and treating PEL' as "Cash Cows" The Bill should end this opportunity to misuse the present law. The MU and the folkies would be better served in encouraging all PH's etc to apply for the general entertainment license as part of thier overall licencing application. One inspection !! - No additional charge !! Perhaps the MU/EFFSD could produce a "proforma" application which would assist managers/publicans, rather than asuming the worst case in all cases. Gareth |
|
28 Jan 03 - 12:25 PM (#876681) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: IanC Problem is, Gareth, what are they going to apply for a PEL for? And what about people not performing in pubs, like street corner carol singers? And what about sword dancers who turn up at 5 different pubs a night every fortnight? And what about the poor old pub piano? And what about a group of people who want to strt a new pub session or folk club? Getting a bog standard PEL for the Rose & Crown won't help any of those things. You have to first say what it's for. :-( |
|
28 Jan 03 - 12:29 PM (#876685) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: KingBrilliant Calm & deep breaths Jon - surely Pied Piper's "they" is only referring to those particular posters who are querying the seriousness of the situation? That's how I read it anyway. Kris |
|
28 Jan 03 - 12:41 PM (#876693) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: GUEST Maybe your right Kris. If so, I apologise to PP. Problem is I have seen the sort of thing I feared happen a few times elsewhere... While here, Gareth: 1. Why the need anyway when Scotland work fine without? 2. Assuming that the need is believed to be over noise and safety, why does the law provide exemption for tv and recorded music? These can create more noise and overcrowding in pubs than a couple of accoustic folkies. Why does he give unfair advantage to activites that pose at least the same risks? Jon |
|
28 Jan 03 - 12:44 PM (#876699) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: McGrath of Harlow "Assuming the worst" is not the same as being aware of the worst, and seeking to avert it. The chances of stepping on a banana skin when you go out for a walk is not very great. But if you don't keep an eye on where you are walking you are foolish. If you've been lucky enough never to have any problems with the existing law, Gareth, don't dismiss the experience of people who have lost sessions that they enjoyed because of it; and don't feel smug about the possibility that it might not happen to you, especially with the new law. Obviously, if pubs choose to get their licences extended to allow "entertainment" that can be good; but there is no reason to assume that all the places where we might hope to play or sing will see it as worthwhile to do that. In which case we won't be able to play or sing there, without breaking the law, and putting both ourselves and the landlord in danger. And of course it's not just pubs, it's any public place. |
|
28 Jan 03 - 12:48 PM (#876702) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Nigel Parsons McGoH: if you feel the tone of this discussion has stayed pretty curteous the maybe you missed the first few posts (say 8 posts) in This thread, as a result of which I decided to avoid posting to most PEL threads Nigel |
|
28 Jan 03 - 12:49 PM (#876703) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: JudeL If the intention of the bill was genuinely a matter of promoting public order it would not excempt large screen tv's etc. nor would it be focussing on regulating live performances rather than measuring, regulating and restricting decibel levels. ( Certain premises in areas of Bournemouth have to have a device fitted which cuts the power to the amp if a certain noise level is reached. ) There is already large amounts of legislation covering noise polution , breach of the peace, and the framework for councils to enact other local byelaws (such as one in Watford that all pubs & bars on the high street must keep their doors and windows closed after 9pm) to reduce the impact and disturbance caused. A bill that extends the need for a public entertainments licence to all public places instead of just those premises currently licenced to serve alcohol cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called deregulatory, (even if it also includes letting pubs stay open longer). There are a number of possibilities to explain Kim Howells statements,amongst them are: 1) He has read the bill , understands it and is lying (possibly cos he doesn't think anyone will find out or care) 2) He has read the bill, understands it but believes that local authorities won't use it as a cash cow, and will lay themselves open to charges of prejudice by not bothering to apply the law except in extreem cases 3)He has read the bill, understood it but is effectively telling everyone to break the law cos although he knows it would technically be against the law to play unlicenced music he realises how unfair it would be and so is telling people to act as if the law doesn't apply to them, (possibly cos he doesn't expect it to be enforced) 4) He has read the bill, doesn't understand it and saying what he hopes it means rather than what the regulations actually state 5) He hasn't read the bill and is just guessing who and what it covers 6) He hasn't read the bill and has listened to someone else's "there there, nothing to worry about" advice on it. So to sum up, either he's lying, cynical, stupid or naive. |
|
28 Jan 03 - 01:20 PM (#876739) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Mr Happy-As I said to you in the chat-room today, I think you are shit stirring and I have to wonder why you started this thread. Lets all remember that arguments and exageration does not help this campaign. |
|
28 Jan 03 - 01:32 PM (#876752) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: McGrath of Harlow To be on the safe side, since I don't read all the threads (and hadn't read that one (around then I was havig computer problems I think), I ought to have written:"the tone of discourse on this has generallystayed pretty courteous towards each other." But in fact, when I followed up that link Nigel gave, I didn't really think it crossed the line - all right, Shambles was being a bit over emphatic in his atempt to get people to react to a particular situation, but there weren't any interpersonal attacks. I don't think courtesy is determined primsarily by whether people use or avoid using taboo words, but by whether they listen to what the other person is saying and avoid being rude to them in their response. |
|
28 Jan 03 - 02:53 PM (#876829) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Richard Bridge Parsons, grow up and stop being afraid of the word describing sexual congress. Rest of the Doubting Thomases, go read my post on teh other thread on the other site. THen read the Bill. THen worry. |
|
28 Jan 03 - 03:03 PM (#876834) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Ed. Well, thanks to Mr Happy's decision to post links here (when I'd made it clear that I'd rather he didn't), I've inadvertetly opened something up. I believe that I've been misunderstood in terms of what I said, and will post something further when I have a bit more time. I'm very much supportive of the camaign against parts of the bill, but do take offence at being called an 'idiotic spastic' as one email that I recieved tonight, characterised me. |
|
28 Jan 03 - 03:09 PM (#876840) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Folkiedave There is an excellent article in today's "Guardian" with a link: here My own personal feeling is that Howells is naive and that he really has no idea how traditional music works and how a local authority can scupper things by sticking to the letter of the law. Dave Eyre |
|
28 Jan 03 - 03:09 PM (#876841) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: McGrath of Harlow You don't want to take any notice of a pillock who'd write something like that, Ed. Stick her or him on a "block sender" in your email programme and forget they ever existed. |
|
28 Jan 03 - 03:24 PM (#876854) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: The Shambles There are three choices. Read the Bill, and make up your own mind. If you are not going to do that. To believe that Howells knows what the words of his Bill actually says. To believe that Hamish knows what the words of the Bill actually says. Gareth the idea that this Bill can be made to work in practice, is one that Labour MPs are trying to sell, because Howells and Co have sold this to them. But it is the underlying principle that is totally unacceptable. As for council's, if they claim a piano or floor is an entertainment element, or that 'swaying to the music is dancing, that is what it will be. Unless you or the licensee can afford to go to court and can afford to lose. This challenge about what or what is not licesable was unlikely under the current legislation because anyone thinking of doing it would be threatened with £20,000 fines or 6 months in prison, it will be the same deterrent under the Bill. Are you prepared to trust that we will not see these type of enforcements? For there is no teeth being produced to prevent them, is there? As for Howells, I have not met him, but I have spoken to those who have had dealings with him over this Bill. I would not waste my sympathy on him, for he will not have any for you. But it is not about personalities, it is about basic principles and not ever being prepared to sacrfice these. Richard Bridge came up with this. "Absence of clarity is destructive of the Rule of Law; it is unfair on those who wish to preserve the rule of law; it encourages those who wish to undermine it" Lord Diplock, Merkur Island Shipping Corp -v- Laughton [1983]2 AC 570 |
|
28 Jan 03 - 03:28 PM (#876858) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: treewind JudeL - a nice list of possibilities. I think it's more like this: - He's read the bill and knows perfectly well that there are provisions in it to comply with undeclared interests which he's not allowed to mention (the influence of the mass media companies on the TV broadcast exemption and the pressure from local authorities to make lots of money out of it are the obvious examples) - so he has to make a big a big sales splash which loudly proclaims various 'principles' which are a Good Thing(TM) while desperately hoping to avoid directly facing the more embarrassing questions. He's succeeded so far at the latter, but then politicians are well trained in that art. Some call it lying, some call it salesmanship. Personally I find little difference between the two, all too often. OK - so in short - he's lying! And since Cherie Blair's recent little incident, "not giving an accurate account of the facts" is the new "being economical with the truth" Anahata |
|
28 Jan 03 - 03:35 PM (#876869) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Liz the Squeak If you think we are over reacting now, just think back to the days before the Poll Tax.. How many of you said 'oh, it will never happen, it's unfair, it's unjust and it will never be enforced'..... LTS |
|
28 Jan 03 - 03:54 PM (#876888) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: JudeL One of the problem with poorly drafted and/or blatently unfair/unenforced/unenforcable legislation is it encourages people to hold the rule of law in contempt, ie they tell themselves this is a bad law or "a grey area" so we will ignore it and treat it as if it doesn't apply. When this happens it doesn't stop with just that one thing, it tends to spread and starts to undermine every other law on the books. Yes it is a slow process but in a country where people are assumed to be complying with the law unless proved otherwise it is also very dangerous. And no I'm not over-reacting , I just don't want another piece of legislation to go on the books that encourages ordinary people to have this attitude. |
|
28 Jan 03 - 04:01 PM (#876897) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Gareth And how is any local government body going to be able to utilise the bill as a cash cow ??? Yes the jobsworths will try but I do not see how they can. One thing is certain the law as it stands in England and Wales needs revue. Let someone better qualified draw up a model application, so that licencees can get the permit from the start. Gareth |
|
28 Jan 03 - 04:06 PM (#876901) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: GUEST,Saddam Pubtuneplayer Hussein To answer the original question, my Eengleesh chums, just a teensy weensy beet. Damsad |
|
28 Jan 03 - 04:15 PM (#876911) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: GUEST One thing is certain the law as it stands in England and Wales needs revue Agreed. We even have a working model in Scotland to use. Why can't the same work here? Jon |
|
28 Jan 03 - 04:19 PM (#876919) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Liz the Squeak There are a lot of Scottish laws that would easily translate to the rest of the British Isles, but it's highly unlikely that the government will ever admit to that. LTS |
|
28 Jan 03 - 04:25 PM (#876923) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: McGrath of Harlow Oh yes, we can live with it. It just won't be much fun for anyone. In practice it will turn out to have all kinds of unsuspected outcomes, as badly drafted legislation always does. I doubt if a standard application that would cover all the different kinds of venues that would need a licence under this law, for all the different types of activities which are defined as registrable entertainment is actually possible. Conceivably one specifically for public houses which only want to allow a bit of live music off in a corner might be possible. But even there I'd doubt if a standard form which would be equally viable in city centre pubs and pubs out in the wilds would be practicable. And of course with different local authorities. A limited range of standard applications in any single geographic area is probably as far as it's possible to push standardisation. I think getting an overarching exemption to coincide with the promises that have been made is actually more realistic. Talk about this as a cash cow assumes that the standard range of licence fees will be vastly greater than the figures which have been announced - they'd need to be a hundred times greater at least to be of any real significance. I can't see that as the root of the trouble. I'd say it's much more likely to be about power and control and self-importance. Kim Howells strikes me as someone who is ambitious, and who believes, probably with some truth, that he is more intelligent than most of his colleagues, a bit of a chancer who likes seeing his name in the papers. And he is probably a bit lazy, and doesn't like being told he is wrong. If he becomes aware that his senior colleagues are starting to see him as perhaps not a safe pair of hands, he will come up with amendments quick enough. |
|
28 Jan 03 - 04:31 PM (#876929) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: The Shambles Good points Jude. It will be interesting too, when we see how a Government that signed up to HR legislation, will react when their own new legislation is considered as not to be compatable with this. They should just say oops, thank you and go away and produce new legislation that is compatible. I don't suppose that will happen somehow, especially with the recent noises about us withdrawing from the ECHR. And how is any local government body going to be able to utilise the bill as a cash cow ??? Yes the jobsworths will try but I do not see how they can. Yes they will certainly try and they will justify claims for more money because of their new increased responsibilities, local issues or whatever. But we may not see a local authority 'cash cow' and that is welcome, but I am not sure at all that we will not be seeing a big fat Government 'cash cow' in its place. Why are the Government saying that brewers would fight including TV sport and broadcast music in the licensing requierment? Why are they also claiming this requirement to be no disincentive to pubs taking up the entertainment but at the same time, are now intent on removing this burden (which is not of course a burden) from commercial concerts in churches? |
|
28 Jan 03 - 04:35 PM (#876935) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: The Shambles To answer the thread's question. It is matter of some regret and sadness to me, that some of us still appear to be looking for reasons not to react at all. |
|
28 Jan 03 - 04:42 PM (#876940) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Ed. This is part of what I'm saying. Kim Howells is no fool, despite what some may say. To make comments in print that: I therefore categorically state that the following will not be licensable: 1) church bell ringers practising and the testing of equipment in a music shop 2) studio recording sessions and rehearsals at a practice studio or in a private house (to which the general public are not admitted) 3) school concerts where the general public are not admitted n music lessons 4) singing 'happy birthday' in a restaurant 5) musicians paid to perform at a private party - including a wedding - for which those attending are not charged and to which the general public are not admitted. are going to rebound really badly against him if he's making them up, and might destroy his career. I really don't think that he's intent on writing a political suicide note. Ed |
|
28 Jan 03 - 05:00 PM (#876954) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Jeri From the other side of the pond: I believe the amount of reaction should reflect the amount people care about the issue. I also believe that once this law is adopted, it will be too late to do much so it's important to let those in positions to do something know exactly how much you do care. As to the bit about enforcement being taken to what seems like silly extremes, sessions weren't a target until recently, were they? People probably would have once thought calling a session 'entertainment' and applying the two-in-a-bar rules to self entertainment would never happen. It would be silly. If the possibility is there, some vindictive or literal-thinking soul will take advantage of it. What's to prevent someone being fined or arrested because a disgruntled person complains and the authorities have no choice but to enforce the law because it's the law. It seems to me if they're supposed to be fixing the law so it makes more sense they should just try to get it right. My personal opinion is that PELs are silly PERIOD. License what people do to have fun? I can't see how entertainment has anything to do with safety, noise, or any of the other excuses used to justify it. One would presume these things are covered under other appropriate laws. To me, it seems like PELs are necessary because they make someone money and it would look bad if the government scrapped them completely. They'd be admitting none of this enforcement and debate has been valid. Please forgive me if I've messed up any terminology. I'm not used to speaking British. |
|
28 Jan 03 - 06:04 PM (#876992) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: GUEST,Peter from Essex The main problem is that the Civil Service made a mess of drafting some sensible reforms and ministers will now loose face by admitting it. |
|
28 Jan 03 - 06:44 PM (#877026) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: The Shambles Ed I think that to answer your questions you really have to had been on the wrong end of these interpretations. See the threads on my local issues to see see how common sense and good intentions mean nothing, if a local authority wishes to interpret them in a way that achieves their end. We really have no protection from this in the Bill. Howells has already gone back on the assurances he gave on Mike Harding's show, have you forgotten this? He is not a complete fool, he is a political animal and he will try and get away with what he can and use any tactic to do this. If you have forgotten the above, he seems to have already gotten away with this lie. These statements are political. Howells has not yet realised that he cannot carry on with these claims if the wording of the Bill does not enable these aims to be achieved. Courts will not have the good intentions of Howells to work with, they will just have the wording of the Bill. He will be long gone, when the first problems will appear in court, so it is vital that the wording is clear. Do you forget who will be making these thin distnctions? Do you trust those who have misplaced our trust and demonstrated little concern for the things that so much matter to us? If local authorities wish to make an activity licensable, the wording of this Bill will enable them to do so and the only hope then is the courts. This cannot be the way things should be, on the introduction of new legislation. The argument seems to be, if the legislation is NOT as bad as folk say, then that is OK. This just reflects our lowered expectations. The Bill is being introduced by the DCMS and claimed to be better for everyone........When things are sold as being all things to all people, it usually means it will prove to be no good for anyone. Where is the justification for licensing a chap singing 'happy birthday' or singing anything else, and not crowds for TV and broadcast music? Or exempting music as part of a service, if the reason is the Bill's stated objectives? The arguments for this remain totally bogus. Let us see what new arguments are introduced and justified to enable the 'fudge' for church concerts. Have you also forgotten that Howells has already made a spirited defence of why church concerts SHOULD be licenced on BBC Radio 4 and why this was not a financial burden? He will be soon defending why they should not, or at least why they should not be paying for the licence. No Howells may not be a fool, but he is prepared to look foolish, to do what he feels he must. To support or to sacrifice anything, to that end. |
|
28 Jan 03 - 06:49 PM (#877031) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: McGrath of Harlow Unless those exceptions are in the Act what Mr Howells says are completely meaningless in terms of the law. In some of those cases (not all) the Bill at present clearly insists on a licence being in place. So unless he is a much bigger fool than he seems he has to do something to change that. The same goes for his pledge that sessions and singarounds will not need licences (July 17th 2002 Radio 2, Mike Harding show.) - which of ciurse he did not include in that list, and which is the one that is of most concern to us I imagine. Mind those things that Ed mentioned are quite craftily put in some cases. For example "bellringers practising" - but what about when they aren't practising, but attempting to ring a peal? And what does "when the general public are not admitted" mean in a school context or even in the case of a private house. All he has to do to come out of this smelling like roses is stick in one or two simple clauses in the exceptions section of the act. |
|
28 Jan 03 - 07:17 PM (#877059) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: vectis I think that we all have bear in mind that the present bill has been badly worded. If ANY piece of legislation can be misinterpreted it WILL be sooner or later. Test cases WILL uphold the law AS IT IS WRITTEN not as it was originally intended. This is why protest is important. The bill needs to be rewritten (preferably all PELS scrapped but that wont happen) before it kills off spontaneous sessions, acoustic music for fun and live music generally. Once the tradition is broken it will probably be lost forever. This is the prospect that we are fighting, or at least I am. |
|
28 Jan 03 - 07:23 PM (#877066) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: The Shambles Hamish Birchall has responded to the Commentary from the DCMS. It is very long, but careful reading of the words of both sides, will go a long way to inform those that are still unsure and provide points and concerns to ask your MP to clafify. http://www.does4you.co.uk/REPLY.htm |
|
28 Jan 03 - 07:28 PM (#877077) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: McGrath of Harlow "Once the tradition is broken it will probably be lost forever." But you don't imagine we'll obey the law do you? Any more than we have been all these years. It'll just get a bit more complicated breaking it. If we lose out on the pubs we'll gain on the illegal house parties and so forth. |
|
28 Jan 03 - 07:55 PM (#877096) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: The Shambles The house concert idea has a lot going for it but has not really taken off here and it probably never will now. Is the new Bill workable for house concerts? Perhaps those familar with the concept can advise? As a charge is usually made, it would seem to rest on whether it is intended for profit or just to break even. Now I can't see why given the objectives of the Bill, how this matters, as if it was for charity, it would certainly require a licence. But leaving that aside for the moment, how is it ever to be established and who is to decide, if a house concert is intended to make a profit? Is this a practical example of how the legislation is made in ignorance of actual events that do and are likely to occur? |
|
28 Jan 03 - 08:11 PM (#877106) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: GUEST Jeri, you know this one I think... Maybe one of you can come up with a good PEL parody. Jon |
|
28 Jan 03 - 09:51 PM (#877191) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Mr Happy well i certainly don't think we're over reacting. this is a very serious threat to our human rights & freedom of expression. you must be very naiive to think Howells is telling the truth, when the only consistencies in any of his utterances are the typical politician responses of ducking & diving questions & blackening the names of any opposition. he's already stated that the MU & Hamish Birchall [jazz drummer & lawyer] are deliberately promulgating misinformation, when in fact they are arguing that the bill's proposals imply that live music [& sundry other activities] performed 'in any place' will require licensing. Howells has contradicted himself in interviews on the radio & also in the press. the british government has also made sure that our population are kept well in the dark about the implications & consequences of this issue, hence the lack of publicity about it in national news broadcasts & the popular press. For example, there was a demonstration in London yesterday, but there's been no mention of it in the news at all. need i go on? or will i be accused of further 'over reaction? |
|
29 Jan 03 - 04:48 AM (#877399) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Dave the Gnome My answer to the original question is no! I have read the bill and the arguments and it is simply a bad bill. Regardless of the wording and arguemants it is simply wrong to tar all entertainment with the same brush. Folk clubs are NOT rock concerts. Jazz nights are NOT going to attract 10,000 people. Simple. Don't treat them the same. And don't charge people for doing what they have been doing free since time began. In addition, given that the choice is to believe a polititican (Kim Howells) or believe eminent musicians (Billy Bragg, Eliza Carthy), a team of Licensing experts and 60,000 like minded people I know what my chouice would be. It is, of course, everyones choice to believe what they want. I will be that last peson to say I told you so...;-) Cheers Dave the Gnome |
|
29 Jan 03 - 05:25 AM (#877414) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Dave Bryant Anyone who thinks that councils won't try to recover as much revenue as possible from PELs is being naive. We all know that it seems to cost councils much more to do things than it does for private companies. There is no way that they will be able to handle the basic licensing side as cheaply as the current system - so they will be looking for some way to recover their costs. Greenwich Council versus "The Cricketers" makes this very clear. The PEL that the pub now has, only allows live entertainment two nights a week. If they wanted more nights, it would cost them correspondingly more. Does this mean that the premises are only safe enough for live performance twice a week ? It seems strange that paying more money would suddenly make them safe for more frequent sessions. The only conclusion is that the council consider the PEL as a tax on live music - and therefor a form of revenue. Incidently, what would happen if the cost of PELs was "capped" by the law ? Would pubs like "The Cricketers" be able to apply for a refund ? - I somehow doubt it. I think that there is a distinct possibility that if some councils are prevented from charging their own rates for PELs, they will tend to refuse applications, except where they have a vested interest. BTW John9 - are you hoping that Hull will be able to opt out of the national scheme ? - just like they do with their telephone service. |
|
29 Jan 03 - 05:46 AM (#877422) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: McGrath of Harlow I'm not so much suggesting that we will find legal ways round the law, though we will, but rather that we will go on breaking it, but maybe it will have to be in different ways. One thing that occurs to me is that people have been lamenting how legal late-night opening of pubs means that the old tradition of the illegal lock-in will die. But the ban on live music could give it a reason to survive, in some pubs anyway. Musical lock-ins. |
|
29 Jan 03 - 06:12 AM (#877436) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: The Shambles Kevin I am no wizard with money but if the present income from every liquor licenses is £3O and all the PEL fees, most of them set pretty reasonably, with a few rather high charging councils, are only comming from 5% of premises, an addition of 95%, must be a significant increase?. For even if it was only the lowest of the Howells quoted figures being used, a one off payment from every business, and thereafter for every change of business and the new personal licence for every licensee, and the yearly £150 - £500 'inspection charges'. We have no control over this but even if the fees are not increased, it sounds like a whole lot on money to me.... |
|
29 Jan 03 - 07:07 AM (#877456) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: McGrath of Harlow Well, for what it's worth (which isn't a great deal) the figure for annual inspection charges Howells gave was surely £50 to £100. With around 30 pubs in our town that wouldn't amount to much income for the council. I'm sure they'll find ways to jack it up, but they'll have to jack it up a hell of a lot to get any worthwhile income from it - the way that some London Councils have with the PEL. The main problem, I think, isn't likely to be the licensing charge but the cost of the "improvements". Though I suspect we're going to find that these are going to be imposed by a lot of councils irrespective of whether the pubs are going for the entertainment option or not, since it won't be magistrates any more but council officers. Which is likely mean that we are going to lose even more pubs to be turned into private dwellings. |
|
29 Jan 03 - 08:08 AM (#877497) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: BusbitterfraeScotland what is a PEL? Tam |
|
29 Jan 03 - 11:35 AM (#877643) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: JudeL Two points Dave: 1) there may only be 30 pubs but, if a licence is required for all public places, ie not just pubs, then the number of licences required will dramatically increase. 2) it is a media/govt myth that the private sector can do the same things more cheaply than local authorities, what they can and often will do is try to pass off an inferior service ( using poor quality resources and fewer more poorly paid staff) as the same service; or as in the case of PFI appear to offer a better value by a lower bid but frequently have major time & cost overruns which the LA or HA then has to pay for and bail out the project. Some examples: Edinborugh Royal Infirmary has a shortfall of £40 million because it's business case was seriously flawed, an extra £24 million will be needed every year over the next 4 years for it to break even. Child support agency, cost of failure of new computer to speed up calculation of benefits £50 million over budget, repeatedly delayed. Tower Hamlets Council in E London, when prices were requested during the final competative stage the consortium bid for the schools building project was £40million, after being selected as sole preferred bidder it increased this to £55 million. These are NOT isolated incidents and this does not include the costs of having to rebuild parts of projects because they were unsuitable for the purpose such as the hospital where 10 of the operation theatres were too dark to work in or the police stations that were built ignoring police security design principles. So please don't make bland statements about how we all know that the private sector can do things cheaper cos it's a myth. |
|
29 Jan 03 - 11:51 AM (#877661) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: GUEST Totally off-topic but McGrath: Anyway, I'm posting my reply here because I can't remember my password for folk info off the top of my head Just noting I did take notice of that and have had 1/2hrs play and have modified http://www.folkinfo.org/membership.asp. I can't guarantee it will work for others but it works for me and hopefully will help. Jon |
|
29 Jan 03 - 11:51 AM (#877662) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: McGrath of Harlow Dave? That was me with the 30 pubs. Even if the fee was £1,000 a pub that doesn't add up to a significant income stream for a town with a good few millions in its budget. This isn't a question of public versus private - it's public at present, with magistrates doing the licencing. Public can be very cost efective indeed, just as private can mean ripping evewryone off (think of the contracts for not cleaning the hospitals properly). If there's any licensing to be done, some kind of public or voluntary sector makes more sense to me. But there are good ways of doing it and bad ways. |
|
29 Jan 03 - 12:07 PM (#877674) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: JudeL Whilst the figure of 30 pubs was you Kevin; the remark about public costing more than private was Dave in his post on 29th Jan 5.25am |
|
29 Jan 03 - 03:53 PM (#877864) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: The Shambles As was pointed out, fees for the Premises Licence will now be in many more places than just pubs, so there will be more premises paying the one off fee for the life of the business, plus also paying the above inspection charge every year. There will be more money overall. As I said numbers are not my thing but is it not about time we knew the real figures and how and why the regional variations and bands are arrived at? There is still a lot of difference between £50 and £100 and this is not the fee but just the annual inspection charge. But if you take a basic pub, currently paying £30 annually and providing no entertainment, all these in England and Wales will be paying £20 more or £70 more than now. And for what? Can this annual inspection charge be justified? The current licensee of the New Star will not be carrying on and I wonder how many more of the smaller pubs we are set to lose? This is without paying for any alterations to enable entertainment. Then there is the additional money from all the new personal licenses, which last ten years. Whilst I accept that individual authorities will not be receiving the current PEL revenue from the few premises that have to pay very hig fees, and that is a good thing, there is still being created overall, a pretty large finicial bovine. Plus the small pubs providing no (conventional) entertainment and perhaps not able to, and who are finacially stretched, would seem to be paying more and subsidising the larger ones, which can provide entertainment and who may be paying less? Until we know how the bands are set, it will not be possible to decide. |
|
29 Jan 03 - 04:09 PM (#877872) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: McGrath of Harlow It's a bore and a nuisance and anther nail in the coffin of the pubs, true enough. The real pain is that it is going to drive more pubs into the hands of companies running chains of pubs, and as well as wrecking the places they are going to hand down to their managers strict rules based on their interpretation of the law. And that is going to mean that, regardless of what the courts might actually decide, and of anything Kim Howells might say, unless there are firm and unambigious written exemptions for live music, there won't be any live msic in these pubs, except where there are entertainment licences built-in. And if there are entertainment licences built-in (involving expensive alterations in proper pubs) the companies are going to want it all done on business lines, and that won't mean our kind of music. |
|
29 Jan 03 - 04:43 PM (#877895) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Richard Bridge Just a mo. 100,000 or so pubs at the moent have no PELS (Public Entertainment Licences). £150 per year inspection fees=£1.5 million a year. I'll have that please. Oh, yes, Camden already saying the fees are too low and will have to go up... |
|
29 Jan 03 - 08:57 PM (#878105) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: McGrath of Harlow The key thing is, over-react to something like that and all you risk doing is waste a bit of time and energy; under-react and you risk losing something you value a great deal more than a little time and energy. When in doubt err on the side of over-reacting every time. |
|
30 Jan 03 - 03:38 AM (#878248) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: GUEST McGrath, I try not to ake "me too" posts but this time I will... I also think that the pubs with character are going to lose out to the boring chains if this law goes through. Our choice may become a bit like deciding whether to eat at McDonalds or Burger King! Jon |
|
30 Jan 03 - 03:50 AM (#878252) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: DMcG One way in which we could be over-reacting it that we can see the damage this bill could do, but maybe there are positives we are ignoring. Picking up something McGrath said a few days back, there is no coffee-house culture of folk in the UK any more, and this is linked to the introduction of the 2-in-a-bar exemption in pubs. Is it at all feasible that having a standard licence everywhere could actually encourage the revival of non-pub folk in Starbucks/Costa et al? (I think it most unlikely, but it does at least seem possible.) |
|
30 Jan 03 - 04:07 AM (#878258) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: clansfolk Making Money ---- Blackpool Lancashire England at present 200 Licences issued If proposed changes take place the town hall is gearing up for 4,000 licences...... Details from the Licensing officers Blackpool Town Hall - don't mention the extra revenue to a council that have just upped the council tax by nearly 13% !!!!!!!! Off to Fleetwood now to "over react" If we do something and get a result - Great If we do something and don't get a result - Sad If we do nothing - We're to blame! Take care - Pete |
|
30 Jan 03 - 04:10 AM (#878261) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: treewind Not if the Starbucks/Costa etc will have to have a PEL too! Anahata |
|
30 Jan 03 - 04:51 AM (#878274) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Dave Bryant Does anyone know how often a PEL will have to be renewed or the premises re-inspected ? I believe the current £30 pub license lasts for 3 years, which only works out to a tenner per year. |
|
30 Jan 03 - 07:23 AM (#878330) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Pied Piper An example of law enforcement by local Government being a nice little earner. Manchester City Council made £80 MILLION from parking fines last year. Yes £80 MILLION The PEL system could be turned into another Council scam. PP |
|
30 Jan 03 - 01:22 PM (#878462) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: The Shambles The Stage front page headline for 30 January 2003 NCA CONFRONTS LICENSING CRITICS By Sally Bramley National Campaign for the Arts director Victoria Todd has attacked the "unhelpful misinformation and hysteria" which she alleges is being whipped up by some critics of the new entertainment licensing bill. Todd, who has been involved in drafting amendments to the legislation currently going through the Lords, said exaggeration the problems would lead ministers to "close their ears" to legitimate criticism of the reforms. She said: "it is not helpful when people come up with apocryphal stories. We've got to make sure our facts ate accurate. If not, the government can turn round and say that it is a load of rubbish. "There is no point in taking it to an exaggerated conclusion. It will get you press coverage but it is absolute drivel. You have to study the bill and go through it." Todd did not refer to any particular critic of the bill in her comments. By contrast, the government has been particularly scathing about the involvement of the Musician's Union in particular. The MU has played a leading role in opposition to the planned legislation. Last week Kim Howells, the minister responsible for overseeing the bill, delivered a vociferous defence of the reforms in a feature in The Stage. He has also gone on record to accuse the MU of running a "pernicious and lying campaign". Howells added: 2Claims that activities like rehearsing in a rehearsal studio, carol singing on someone's door step or trying out a guitar in a music shop will be licensable are pure fantasy. "I hope the Musicians Union will acknowledge this and that we can work together from here to address any genuine concerns they have about the content of the bill that are based on fact not fiction." But this week a furious John Smith, general secretary of the MU, hit back, challenging the minister to prove the union wrong: "We have had a good relationship with the culture minister but this marks a low point. I find his comments extremely insulting. "if we are wrong we will be glad to climb down, These are issues of great concern to our members. We hope it won't as we suspect, kill some aspects of live music." In a letter to The Stage this week, the MU leader repeated claims that the bill was imprecisely worded and would unfairly affect thousands of unintended victims insisting that "what the minister says and what the bill means are two different things". A spokesman from Equity appeared to echo Todd's criticism, saying it had been working with closely with the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to discuss the proposed legislation. But he added: "We have not been helped by some of the claims which we believe are not acurate". Letter to The Stage 30 January 2003 editor@thestage.co.uk From John Smith General Secretary Musicians' Union Clapham Rd London SW8 Whatever Kim Howells says in his piece 'Fitting the Bill' (Leader, January 23, page 8), for musicians the licensing bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. If enacted without amendment it will render almost all public performance a criminal offence unless licensed. Whether you are a harpist playing in a hotel lobby, or a music teacher arranging a small public concert with your pupils, all musicians become liable to criminal prosecution unless they 'take all reasonable precautions' to ensure that the performance holds the 'appropriate authorisation'. Premises is defined as 'any place' and could include your home, garden, village green, park or street. The new 'facilities' criterion for licensing would make a landlord guilty of a criminal offence for providing an unlicensed piano in a bar – unless it was kept locked. These undisputed facts account for the outrage and indignation of the press and public alike. No wonder more than 50,000 have signed an online petition opposing the government's bid for almost total state control of live performance. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has severely criticised the licensing bill as a potential violation of musicians' right to freedom of expression and many eminent lawyers, some of them musicians, share this concern. It is true that the proposal to standardise fees will mean that 5% of pubs and bars currently holding public entertainment licenses will save money, However, for many licensees the process of obtaining the 'necessary authorisation' for live music will be time-consuming and laborious. The result may be a small increase in the number of premises allowing more than two musicians but there would be a larger number where even one acoustic performance would be a criminal offence. The Musicians' Union has long recognised that the particularly stringent controls of licensing may be necessary for certain types of premises where the public safety risk and potential for local disturbance is high. But we know that existing health and safety and noise legislation is perfectly adequate to address small-scale performance, especially where the music is secondary to the main business of premises such as restaurants and bars. In Scotland no specific permission is required for live music in this context during permitted hours. Public safety and noise is regulated by UK-wide legislation. The minister's argument that licensing is necessary because he does not accept that acoustic music is never noisy is ludicrous when set against the bill's exemptions for broadcast entertainment and jukebox music. However powerful the amplification for these forms of public entertainment, neither are licensable under the bill. We welcome the minister's statement that certain specific examples will not be caught by the legislation . However, what the minister says and what the bill means are two different things. Beyond the ivory tower of the department the legal consensus is that carol singers and church bell-ringers are within the scope of the bill's definitions. We cannot understand why his department will not amend the proposals so that the bill clearly and unambiguously states what the minister says it states. At the moment it is too loosely worded and will be open to all sorts of interpretation once it is on the statute book. To give some headline points: Why does the DCMS not tighten up the definition of 'premises' so that private dwellings and functions are clearly removed? Why will a performer be guilty of a criminal offence if he/she does not find out, prior to the engagement, whether it is licensed or not? Why not make it clear that 'for profit' refers exclusively to commercial promoters and not to musicians who charge a fee at private events? The above is just a snapshot of the concerns. A few well drafted amendments could go a long way towards allaying our fears and mean that we can move forward together. Why is the DCMS so arrogant and intransigent over this issue? John Smith |
|
30 Jan 03 - 11:38 PM (#878842) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: GUEST,BusbitterfraeScotland I have asked this question before and yet not person has gave me an answer, All I want to know is what is PEL? Thank you, then once I know then I'll be able to understand what the hell you lot are writing about. Tam |
|
30 Jan 03 - 11:41 PM (#878843) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: GUEST,busbitterfraeScotland P.S. I know it's sounds rude but if anyone does answer please could you tell me in a way that I can understand. Because I'm a bit slow and I can't understand big words. |
|
31 Jan 03 - 03:06 AM (#878901) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Mr Happy GUEST,busbitterfraeScotland PEL= Public Entertainment Licence [England & Wales] Have a look at www.musiclovers.ukart.com for more information also see http://www.hobgoblin.com/hobnob/licensing.htm |
|
31 Jan 03 - 03:17 AM (#878903) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: Mr Happy sorry one of those links don't work, try this one. http://www.musiclovers.ukart.com/ |
|
31 Jan 03 - 04:53 AM (#878929) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: The Shambles We have a major fight on our hands, when we have won it, we can then have our personal spats, which have little or nothing to do with the issue. And then have them off of the public forums, preferably. Can we not just forget the small personal differences with each other, as none of us are perfect, and be positive and concentrate on the rather large difference between us and those in power? |
|
31 Jan 03 - 06:46 PM (#879563) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: GUEST,BusbitterfraeScotland Thank you Mr Happy |
|
31 Jan 03 - 07:00 PM (#879577) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: McGrath of Harlow As I understand it the licence is a "lifetime" licences (with an annual update fee). I think "lifetime" means so long as the licensee continues to be in charge, so only if they if they sell up or move on, or die, does it need to be reewed. But I'm not sure about that. |
|
31 Jan 03 - 07:06 PM (#879585) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: GUEST,BusbitterfraeScotland All I can say is that I'm glad that I live in Scotland. I mean inmagine going to jail or paying a big fine just because you're playing music, ah well that's what you get for voting Labour. Maybe next time vote for another party excpet the Tories for God sake. I don't want to start a troll please It's only a joke. |
|
01 Feb 03 - 02:43 AM (#879817) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: The Shambles This was Dr Howells on Radio 3 (the whole thing is in the 'exemptions' thread). But of course many of the venues will say that they simply can't afford this, so what are they supposed to do? KH Well at the moment of course, we've head horror stories of venues, especially in central London who have to pay thousands of pounds for an entertainments licence. Now we're gonna set a fee that is going to be between £100 and £500, which is a lifetime fee for a premises licence and a annual charge, if you like of £100 - £150, so these are hugely reduced costs. And it should put the whole thing on an even keel, people will know where they are and there will be real consistency there. He is trying to give the impression that the one-off fee is a lifetime fee for the building, when it is only for the lifetime of the business, in that building. Fact: The only licensees who may initially be paying less under the Bill, are some the 5% who currently pay for PELs in the areas where councils are over-charging, many of these not providing any live music at all. Everyone else will be paying more per year. For all pubs without PEL now, even the £100 annual inspection charge is an increase. The 'hugely reduced costs' are only for the larger establishments, who had rather a large input into wording the Bill. The ones who can best afford to pay. The smaller places, like The New Star, whose licensee have said they will give-up, get little real encouragement to provide live music, under this Bill. |
|
14 Jul 04 - 06:55 PM (#1225623) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: GUEST,tara kelly' help me |
|
15 Jul 04 - 04:15 AM (#1225857) Subject: RE: PELs: Are we over-reacting? From: ET Try looking at the new guidance. Issued by Tessa Jowells its on www.culture.gov.uk - the section on live music is easy to find but its full of platitudes, most of which I think will be ignored by local authorities, who in my opinion, have presided over the death of culture over many years. |