|
06 Feb 07 - 12:19 PM (#1959194) Subject: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Richard Bridge I suspect the reason that Roger Gall has not posted this useful link here is the rather shabby way he was treated by the pack. Here is a link to an article in the Times no less (shame it's Murdoch) about some of the idiocies in the LIcensing Act. There is also a comment area below the article to which I have posted. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article1336496.ece |
|
06 Feb 07 - 12:21 PM (#1959196) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Richard Bridge But my comment below her article has not appeared yet for some reason. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 12:37 PM (#1959214) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Leadfingers The petition is at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/licensing/ |
|
06 Feb 07 - 12:39 PM (#1959217) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Leadfingers Our friend Shambles can be a bit of a PITA , but his information is usually accurate , if sometimes somewhat overstated ! |
|
06 Feb 07 - 02:51 PM (#1959372) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Richard Bridge I fear I cannot support the petition because it fails to recognise that electric music (live or recorded) can be a powerful source of disruption. What never needed regulating, and now needs deregulating, is unamplified music. |
|
06 Feb 07 - 03:01 PM (#1959382) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Herga Kitty Richard - your comments still not there.... Kitty |
|
06 Feb 07 - 04:46 PM (#1959526) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: bubblyrat Richard ! Last year at Sidmouth, there was a bloke on the esplanade playing with the 'aid' of a rather loud portable amplifier.I asked two coppers to get it stopped,as the festival organisers had asked for there to be no amplification.Well, it was a devil of a job getting these two blokes to do anything about it : they just weren"t interested !! And I suspect that this is the attitude that will prevail,irrespective of what legislation our flawed leaders see fit to pass.So ,carry on as usual,I say,& bugger the new rules----who will ever enforce them ??? I certainly do not intend to obey them !! |
|
06 Feb 07 - 05:22 PM (#1959587) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: The Shambles We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to recognise that music and dance should not be restricted by burdensome licensing regulations. I fear I cannot support the petition because it fails to recognise that electric music (live or recorded) can be a powerful source of disruption. The words used in any petition fail to recognise many things - mainly because they must be limited and cannot cover everything. But the words of this petition equally do not say that electric music cannot be a powerful source of disruption - do they? When loud music becomes disruptive (along with all other sources of loud noise) - it must be dealt with effectivly. The past has shown us that licensing - in advance of the noise actually taking place - is not an effective method of dealing with a measurable problem as it also prevents much music making that is not disruptive noise. But unless you are in favour of music and dance being restricted by burdomsome licensing regulations (and from your approach on this - it does sometimes appear that you are) - I see no reason why you feel you cannot support this petition. We have been over this before - your concern is NOISE. Those far more informed than I am have convinced me long ago that other legislation has made the attempt to additionally control loud noise through licensing pointless. And since then even more legislation has been introduced to address the problem of noise - has it not? |
|
07 Feb 07 - 05:10 PM (#1960388) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Richard Bridge 1. I have tried to get noise from pubs, audible for 800 yards, stopped. It doesn't work. That's why electric music and dancing needs licensing. That and the yobs with shivs now moving up to aspire to Glocks) active in disco and chav music. 2. The Times seems to be barring my posts. I tried again to post comments tonight to two articles (the one on sexual frequency is quite interesting really). No joy. |
|
07 Feb 07 - 07:30 PM (#1960567) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Andy Jackson Far be it for me to interject in such an erudite conversation, but needs must. Consider, if you will, of one small phrase - anti social behaviour. If that idea could be accepted in the statute book, as it is understood by most right thinking people, then most of todays problems could be easily dealt with. No matter what is actually causing the nuisance, if it is perceived to be a nuisance then stop it. Obviously some measure of tolerance and judgment would be required and this is an art we seem to have lost in a society that seems to need every cicumstance carefully slotted into a tick the box methodology. Chew on that for a bit Andy |
|
08 Feb 07 - 04:46 AM (#1960860) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: GUEST,Richard Bridge elsewhere The trouble with that is that the innocent need to know what charge is levied against them and what their defences are so that they can defend themselves. Which is why I loathe the sloppy use of the word "inapproproate" - it means exactly what the user wants it to mean and the accused is deprived of the opportunity to defend him/her self. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 08:23 AM (#1961027) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: The Shambles That's why electric music and dancing needs licensing. Most would agree that there are sensible reasons for why any public gathering could benefit by the introduction of certain measures, in order to protect the interests of all those involved or affected. From the failed history of this attempt, I don't agree that licensing is the answer to your problem, but I certainly would not accept that restricting all music and dance by burdomsome licensing regulations is any form of answer to anything. But even if it were - the petition is against music and dance being singled out and 'restricted by burdomsome licensing regulations'. I assume that you would not be in favour of burdomsome licensing restrictions to achieve your desired result for it was those we were hoping to see the back of when this new legislation was proposed - so I fail to see any good reason why you cannot sign this petition. If the legislation to protect the public from all forms of disruptive noise are thought not to be adequate - then it is this legislation that needs to be addressed. Loud noise from any other source can be equally disruptive but no one is seriously suggesting that it should or even could be adressed by entertainment licensing. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 08:30 AM (#1961035) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Scrump I thought noise nuisance, regardless of whether caused by loud music, rowdy behaviour, DIY power tools, or whatever, was covered by other laws? So loud music should be covered by that, and there's no need for it to be covered by the music licencing laws. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 01:50 PM (#1961386) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Richard Bridge Scrump, have you ever tried getting a noisy music or dance pub quietened down? Sooner or later the fact that it's you complaining gets out and then you start getting threats from every local yobbo. Been there, done that. The noise regulation does not work on the ground. Also, noise regulation is necessarily retrospective. Try getting a noise abatement officer out at 8 or 9 pm if you are not already on the special alert list. Can't be done. There's no-one answering the phone. The noise of electric music and dance needs pre-emptive control. Roger, for the above reason, some music and dance does need burdensome regulation. So some music and dance should get it. The words of the petition necessarily mean that no music and dance should suffer burdensome regulation. That is why it is not right, it is why I told Hamish I could not support it, it is why I haven't signed it and it is why I won't sign it. If one just says "Oh, it'll be all right, we know what we mean" then one is bad as the pillocks who drafted the Act. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 02:40 PM (#1961467) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Having posted a range of comments, starting at "so bland as to be useless", and workng up to "downright sarcastic" when ignored, I have given up. It is noticeable that there are no posts deemed acceptable which mention the tradition, or folk clubs, in a positive light. Same old same old. Don T. |
|
08 Feb 07 - 02:44 PM (#1961472) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Mo the caller What is electric dancing? |
|
09 Feb 07 - 02:11 AM (#1961964) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: The Shambles Roger, for the above reason, some music and dance does need burdensome regulation. Sensible regulation is one thing - I really doubt that anything needs selecting for burdomsome regulation. But perhaps you can explain how the curent burdomsome regulation of all forms of live music through entertainment licensing can deal with all forms of disruptive noise? And how when when no distinction is made by LAs between amplified and non-amplified entertainment - any pe-emptive measures can fail to additionaly prevent entertainment that presents no noise concern. And why if noise regulation does not work on the ground - it is not this regulation that you require to be addressed to enable it to do the job it is designed for? You cannot encourage live music - as this Act is supposed to be doing - when all music is first seen as presenting a noise problem - whether it does or not. We already have the situation where whatever the type of music - noise limiters are automatically required to be first installed for all applications. So any pub which does not wish to pay for this or any other demands made to address noise - will not be able to provide any form of live music - even that which does not present any noise concern. Is that not burdomsome enough regulation for you? It is not what I would call sensible licensing regulation. Scrump, have you ever tried getting a noisy music or dance pub quietened down? Sooner or later the fact that it's you complaining gets out and then you start getting threats from every local yobbo. Been there, done that. But the same applies currently - for any restrictions on the grounds of noise are supposed to be introduced only in response to valid concerns. Anyone objecting in advance will need to make themselves known. |
|
09 Feb 07 - 02:57 AM (#1961977) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Richard Bridge Now now Roger, you're getting back to your bad old habits. |
|
09 Feb 07 - 03:06 AM (#1961981) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Richard Bridge I have written to the times editor to complain about the censoring of comments. His email address is: online.editor@timesonline.co.uk |
|
09 Feb 07 - 06:02 AM (#1962083) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Scrump What is electric dancing? Wait till you get your next electricity bill, then you'll know the answer :D |
|
09 Feb 07 - 06:09 AM (#1962086) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Scrump Richard, I sympathise with your difficulties re. the current unsatisfactory implementation of the 'noise nuisance' laws (whatever they're officially called), but these are the laws you/we should be trying to get changed, to make it easier for people like you who suffer because of antisocial loud noise at night (etc.) to get it stopped. I agree that the way the current laws operate is a mess, and very difficult for people like you to get anything changed. I know from my own experience and that of others how difficult it is to get the required evidence (recordings, etc.) before the authorities will actually do anything to stop the problem. But this is a different issue from the licencing of music, IMO. I'm not sure it's helpful to confuse them. (It's possible that maybe it is helpful to tackle the two issues together, but I've yet to be convinced of that). |
|
09 Feb 07 - 07:13 AM (#1962129) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: The Shambles Richard - you signing this petition or not is a matter for you to decide and I fear that this will not make much of difference either way. But as you have publicly stated your reasons for why you will not sign it and this may influence others - it is surely not too much to expect you to provide some supporting details and answer any questions about what exactly you do propose and why? I remember most of the problems being presented to the Cove's application for the old PEL was because of a local objection to 'the playing of loud rock music'. Presumably loud classical music would have been judged to have been acceptable. But this objection (based on persoanal taste) resulted in measures that threatened all forms of music including the regular Morris dancing. Your objection is a similar one - making as it does the subjective assessment of what some others would consider to be pleasurable entertainment - to be noise. Few would judge loud industrial noise or motorway traffic noise to be pleasuable entertainment - but there is no accounting for taste. And in legislation and regulation - there should not be. Noise levels are measurable - and must be dealt with equally - whatever its source and no matter what prejudice is shown against what some would describe as noise emanating from certain sources. |
|
09 Feb 07 - 12:25 PM (#1962360) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Richard Bridge Roger, I've got a 10k PA rig in my garage. It makes a lot of noise (if I turn it on and up) whatever type of music. It's not the type of music. It's how loud. Amplified is louder than not amplified. Amplified music (recorded, broadcast, or otherwise) and other amplified sound (eg football on TV) needs regulating. Unamplified music doesn't. |
|
09 Feb 07 - 12:51 PM (#1962390) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: synbyn I agree with you, Richard- except that I sometimes play an electric bass very very quietly, (a gentle counterpoint to a thrusting banjo) to save having to carry a string bass under my arm, and so need some provision for amplification- which is why a blanket ban wouldn't help me. Most pubs now have a christmas tree noise indicator, which ought to deal with the really loud stuff within the law. It's not beyond the wit of man to devise a (given) volume at a (given) range surely? After all, the Highway Code specifies pretty exactly, as did St Edmund's Code for the Anglo-Saxons... their priests had to remain celibate and St Edmund's code gave stopping distances. For a nun it was 15 feet, but for anything faster you had to allow a lot more... |
|
10 Feb 07 - 12:57 AM (#1962960) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: The Shambles Amplified music (recorded, broadcast, or otherwise) and other amplified sound (eg football on TV) needs regulating. If you do not require these regulations to be burdomsome licensing ones - I can still see no good reason why you feel that you cannot support this petition as worded. Which is where we came in. I fear I cannot support the petition because it fails to recognise that electric music (live or recorded) can be a powerful source of disruption. What never needed regulating, and now needs deregulating, is unamplified music. The New Star has just applied for a variation to enable live music (and indoor sports). If as I suspect - they will be first required to install a noise limiter etc - I fear due to the expense of - they will give up and the non-amplified session that took place there for many years and was then prevented under the old legislation will also be prevented under the new. And this over a concern about possible noise that would not even be a concern for this activity and when it was taking place, was never the subject of a noise complaint. This licensee has also been told by the local authority's officers that they need entertainment permission for all pub games. Are these the sort of burdomsome licensing regulations you support? |
|
10 Feb 07 - 04:32 AM (#1963009) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Richard Bridge Noise limiter an obvious example of why licensing good for electric music (except that in the hands of stupid local authorities I have known unaccompanied unamplified singers who could set them off). Sybyn, it is possible to draft to free unamplified-level instruments rather than unamplified instruments from licensing, but if we can't even get the governing idiots to understand that amplifiers make things louder, what chance do we get of anything abit more subtle. |
|
10 Feb 07 - 07:25 AM (#1963090) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: The Shambles Noise limiter an obvious example of why licensing good for electric music (except that in the hands of stupid local authorities I have known unaccompanied unamplified singers who could set them off). I could equally just dismiss your problems obtaining satifaction through noise legislation as being down to stupid local athorities. But that does not get us anywhere. We all must accept that there are many such local authorities and not make their attempts to strangle all live music with burdomsome regulations any easier than it currently is. Richard if their installation, (through licensing) is such a good idea - can you explain why the installation of noise limiters is not effective in addressing your local problem? |
|
10 Feb 07 - 08:37 AM (#1963130) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Richard Bridge Yes Roger - you need licensing to install them!! |
|
10 Feb 07 - 12:49 PM (#1963295) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: The Shambles No you don't. Where there is a noise concern - anti-noise legislation can insist on the installation on these as a measure to attempt to control it. Which must be better than risking forms of music making, that may not be a noise concern by insisting on them in advance, as a licensing measure. Do you accept that licencing conditions that insist that the premises pay for their installation does risk all forms of music - if the premises decide not to pay for their installation. But why has the use of the wonderful noise limiters not solved your local problem? I have known unaccompanied unamplified singers who could set them off). If it is the same one that I am thinking of - they could sing in Kent and set them off in Dorset. |
|
10 Feb 07 - 12:55 PM (#1963298) Subject: RE: 2-in-a-bar (UK) the Times today From: Scrump Amplified music (recorded, broadcast, or otherwise) and other amplified sound (eg football on TV) needs regulating. Unamplified music doesn't. I don't think making the distinction between amplified and unamplified music is helpful, and it could be counter-productive. A lad living near us (thankfully now moved out) sometimes used to go out in the street at night and play his acoustic guitar for the benefit of his friends. He was playing reasonably softly, but it was enough to disturb us. I could probably wake you up singing with my acoustic! Focusing on whether noise is amplified or not seems a waste of time to me - noise is noise and causes a problem, whether it comes out of a speaker or not. |