uk lisencing gets much worse....

[USE]

The Government have recently passed laws in the UK to try and suppress live music and dance. Pubs which could previously offer work to solo singers or duos now have to pay for a special licence and can only have 12 of these per year. Even school Xmas concerts need to be licensed.

If you don't know there is a UK government web site where anyone can now start a petition and that's what is being done. we've just received the following email which explains things more clearly and gives the site address . If you care about keeping music live please take the time to sign the petition.

Subject: Music/Licensing Laws - Official Downing Street petition

Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:36:37

Please circulate

The live music/licensing e-petition now has nearly 4550 signatures.
It currently stands at no.17 in the list of 1,702 petitions on the
Number 10 website: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/licensing/

This is good, especially in just under a month - and there are five
more months in which people can sign. (CLOSING DATE: 11 June 2007).
But the petition needs to do much better to make an impression on ministers, and to encourage DCMS to implement music-friendly amendments.

The petition is for everyone, not just musicians. Please consider
signing if you haven't already done so. If you have signed, encourage friends to sign.

Points to remember about the new legislation:

a.. The unlicensed provision of even one musician is a potential
criminal offence (although some places are exempt, including places of public religious worship, royal palaces and moving vehicles). Max penalty: ?20,000 fine and six months in prison.

b.. The rationale is to prevent noise, crime and disorder, to ensure public safety, and the protection of children from harm.

c.. But broadcast entertainment, including sport and music, is exempt - no matter where, and no matter how powerfully amplified.

d.. In the transition to the new regime, bars with jukeboxes, CD
players etc were automatically granted a license to play recorded
music; but their automatic entitlement to one or two musicians was abolished.

e.. For the first time, private performances raising money for charity are licensable.

f.. School performances open to friends and family are licensable -
they count as public performances.

g.. Under the old regime all premises licensed to sell alcohol for
consumption on the premises were automatically allowed up to two live musicians (the 'two in a bar rule').

h.. In December, DCMS published research confirming that about 40% of these have lost any automatic entitlement to live music as a result of the new Act:

'Very few establishments that wanted a new license were denied it, and many who were previously limited to 2-in-a-bar now have the ability to stage music with 2 or more musicians... This contrasts, of course, with the fact that 40% of establishments now have no automatic means of putting on live music (i.e. they would have to give a TEN).'

['Licensing Act 2003: The experience of smaller establishments in
applying for live music authorization'; December 2006', paragraphs
6.1.1 and 6.1.2 'Conclusions', p54; Caroline Callahan, Andy Martin,
Anna Pierce, Ipsos-MORI]

'TEN' stands for Temporary Event Notice - in effect a temporary
entertainment licence. Only 12 are allowed per premises per year.
They cost ?21 each. See the full MORI reports on this site:

http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_...ec_summary.htm

[holly]

Who is pushing this legislation? Broadcast and sports? Anti-drinking? I would honestly assume that a few musicians would be prefered to DJs to help create a quieter "cafe" atmosphere, as opposed to DJ and club music. The law sees no difference?

Bizarre that this affects school shows and dance recitals. That'll kill live entertainment at the low end, meaning it will never develope into the high end....

[6071842]

it just seems really stupid! what will it acheive? madness! ive signed!

[PilotX]

I thought this already passed, along with the possibility of 24hr drinking? bit late now isn't it? and the musicians guild/keep music live, along with school teachers/headteachers unions, camra and pub landlords groups, and the ever useful media presence of musicians like (iirc) paul weller and billy bragg (actually did noel gallagher get involved?) didn't stop it then it isn't going to be changed now.
iirc, we can no longer sing happy birthday to a friend in an pub without an entertainments licence :(

I don't remember anyone pusing this to be honest. I think that it was probably the group of people who thought 24hr licences would lead to the downfall of britain as drunken mobs of 18-30yr old lads and laddettes ran amok on a 24/7 drinking binge, and the whole of the UK eventually becomes an alcoholic culture, everyone pissed all the time, fighting violence, booze, sex.. anarchy.
they wanted some way to piss on all our fun, so took away our right to sing along to a song on the jukebox.
I don't even drink :(
probably it's just to make it easier to remove pubs licences if the council fancies it

[sleepytom]

no it's not passed yet - even the morris ring (http://www.themorrisring.org/) are annoyed about it (they managed to get an exception to the last stupid licensing changes which specifically allowed practice or performance of morris dancing without requiring a public entertainments license! - best of all nowhere in the bill was "morris dancing" defined in anyway at all ;))

[PilotX]

that's interesting - so it didn't go through with the 24hr licencing then.. hmm..
hopefully it'll get put down then. there's really no logic to it, and they would probably prefer to use the parliamentary time for something more important like ID cards or MPs salaries.

so, no definition of morris dancing eh? "no officer, this isn't a rave, we're all morris dancers" .. "no really, check the flyer: dress code: white hankies and bells. whistles and glow sticks optional.".. ;) Bet that would go down well.

[sleepytom]

haha it doesn't - i've not had to try it in court yet though...

[makemassair]

thats appalling

signed up

[RapideyeVJ]

Already signed

[VGA]

hey heres another one, maybe I saw on vjf, wtf >>

"There are a number of moves promoting the requirement of 'ID' cards to allow photographers to operate in a public place.

It is a fundamental right of a UK citizen to use a camera in a public place, indeed there is no right to privacy when in a public place.

These moves have developed from paranoia and only promote suspicion towards genuine people following their hobby or profession."


http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Photography/

[onix]

I have signed.

But am still giggling about the morris dancers. I can imagin us all turning up to gigs with straw hats and hankies.

[spaceman]

maybe someone can sign for me....
"You must be a British citizen or resident to sign the petition."
reminds me of "V for Vendetta"

[unjulation]

sounds like the cja (criminal justice act) from the 90's to me -

make a law that can be used by a athority if they so wish to shut an establishment/event down -

do you realy think that they will be able to enforce it?

would they want to in every case?

as far as i can tell its about makeing laws that will allow an athority to controle a situation if they so wish -

aparantly no one is alowed or will be able to run a free party since the origional cja :lol:

[deepvisual]

make a law that can be used by a athority if they so wish to shut an establishment/event down -

just like the use of anti terrorism legislation to eject an 84 year old (http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAD7F.htm) from the labour party conference.

that way the UK can appear to be a democracy and still act like a police state.

[Bokonon]

sounds like the cja (criminal justice act) from the 90's to me -

make a law that can be used by a athority if they so wish to shut an establishment/event down -

do you realy think that they will be able to enforce it?

would they want to in every case?

as far as i can tell its about makeing laws that will allow an athority to controle a situation if they so wish -

aparantly no one is alowed or will be able to run a free party since the origional cja :lol:

Your misunderstanding of section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Disorder Act (1994) is laughable.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/Ukpga_19940033_en_6.htm

[unjulation]

to the above post -

i'm not quite sure what im serposed to be mis-understanding hear -

yes there is a law that says we carnt put free partys on or within anothers land - trespass

but as an individual who has been involved in puting free partys on, within or on anothers land - trespass - since 1987 -

my personal experiance has dictatded the way i see uk law -

which is - they create laws that they can then use as and when they need, whenever the situation they see fit -

it still doesnt stop individuals and groups trespassing and playing " "music" includes sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats."

and it hasent stoped people doing so -

so this has shown me that what the law says and what we as individuals/groups/sociatys are actualy capable of doing are actualy two totaly diferant things -

which was what i was trying to get accross to peeps -

so like i say tell me what im misunderstanding hear ?

[Bokonon]

yes there is a law that says we carnt put free partys on or within anothers land - trespass

No there is not - there is a law (the one I linked to) which stops gatherings on land in the open air of 100 or more persons (whether or not trespassers) at which amplified music is played during the night (with or without intermissions) and is such as, by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at which it is played, is likely to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality; and for this purpose? (a) such a gathering continues during intermissions in the music and, where the gathering extends over several days, throughout the period during which amplified music is played at night (with or without intermissions); and (b) "music" includes sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats.but nothing to stop free parties per se (there are many many free parties run legally and within the law in this country all the time).

There is no 'law of trespass' - it's merely a legal term utilised across many different pieces of legislation.



so like i say tell me what im misunderstanding hear ?

A number of things.

[unjulation]

There is no 'law of trespass' - it's merely a legal term utilised across many different pieces of legislation.

but is that not what i'm argueing with you about at this point in time ?

as in the document you linked to -

that the law of the land can be totaly ignored ?

regarding the use of termonolagy of the words of "Free party" mayby i should have have been more acurate with my definition (i'll have to opologise about my use of langue, dyslexica, so i personaly opologise for that)

i was sepsificly conecting it to partys that - "music" includes sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats."

[Bokonon]

but is that not what i'm argueing with you about at this point in time ?

I merely suggested you understood very little about the CJA, a suggestion borne out by your subsequent rebuttal (supposedly to the contrary).

as in the document you linked to -

The CJA, yes.

that the law of the land can be totaly ignored ?

Not something I have commented on what so ever.

regarding the use of termonolagy of the words of "Free party" mayby i should have have been more acurate with my definition

If you are going to suggest something is illegal, then, it would make sense to - I could say 'drugs are illegal - but it would be just as wrong, as proven by the caffeine in my tea.


i was sepsificly conecting it to partys that - "music" includes sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats."

Not very clearly.

Your immediate reply read very much like you believed that the act of trespass had something to do with the illegality of, for want of a better word, 'raves' - which is wholly untrue - they are illegal even with the land owners permission.

[unjulation]

QUOTE]I merely suggested you understood very little about the CJA, a suggestion borne out by your subsequent rebuttal (supposedly to the contrary).
[/QUOTE]

Your misunderstanding of section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Disorder Act (1994) is laughable.

sergesting that my understanding is - your words "laughable" does actualy sergest that that you have responded to my coments with a emotional responce rarther then anything else

If you are going to suggest something is illegal, then, it would make sense to - I could say 'drugs are illegal - but it would be just as wrong, as proven by the caffeine in my tea.


dont understand that?

Not very clearly.

as i said i sometimes have a problem with english - even tho its my native langue and i apologise for that like i did in my last post

Your immediate reply read very much like you believed that the act of trespass had something to do with the illegality of, for want of a better word, 'raves' - which is wholly untrue - they are illegal even with the land owners permission.

yes i know but it still doesnt change what i said about that situation -

so this has shown me that what the law says and what we as individuals/groups/sociatys are actualy capable of doing are actualy two totaly diferant things -

[unjulation]

so this has shown me that what the law says and what we as individuals/groups/sociatys are actualy capable of doing are actualy two totaly diferant things -

which was the point of all this -

sorry folks for going of on one :grouphug:

[Bokonon]

sergesting that my understanding is - your words "laughable" does actualy sergest that that you have responded to my coments with a emotional responce rarther then anything else

No merely that I thought it absurb - a response to its factual content or otherwise.



dont understand that?

That you should be accurate with your words if you are going to suggest something is illegal, as people may get the wrong end of the stick if you don't communicate clearly.

I didn't say that it did change that small part of what you said.

[unjulation]

look, ok i have troubl with languaf=ge and maybe i have misunderstood you but i still stand by the coment that the law is an ass and it realy doesnt matter wat it says you as an individual/group/sociaty can actualy do what you want

which was my originoal post or at least what it was about ( if anyone didnt understand it then opoligigys)

it was basicaly saying that we have the power to do as we will wether that is good or bad - thats up to us to decide - so dont get caught up in trying to change things that you carnt -

you have the ability just to get on with it no matter what anyone else says

[unjulation]

look, ok i have troubl with languaf=ge

and typeing...............

[Bokonon]

Fair enough, i have issues with language as well, but i have spent immense amounts of time developing strategies to overcome it.

it was basicaly saying that we have the power to do as we will wether that is good or bad - thats up to us to decide - so dont get caught up in trying to change things that you carnt -

you have the ability just to get on with it no matter what anyone else says

Thats just a defeatist/apologist attitude - does that mean, because it pretty much impossible for the police to stop to stop me murdering someone I can do so if I wish?

The law is indeed wrong on many occasions, however, just because it is, doesn't mean you just flaunt the law, there is an imperative to fight it whn it is wrong, this is a fundamental tenet of our justice system, that it thrives entirely on setting precedent with laws and in order for laws to come to maturity and have real meaning, there must be some degree of conflict between those who agree and those who disagree - if you give up, and don't fight 'what you can't do anything about' then you will never be able to do anything about it, these laws are still (yes still) in their infancy and have only been lightly tested, there is massive scope for very positive variation in terms of how the existing laws are actually implemented in practice, but it won't happen without a fight.

[unjulation]

Thats just a defeatist/apologist attitude - does that mean, because it pretty much impossible for the police to stop to stop me murdering someone I can do so if I wish?

basicaly yes you can - its up to you wether you do - now thats resonsobility

The law is indeed wrong on many occasions, however, just because it is, doesn't mean you just flaunt the law, there is an imperative to fight it whn it is wrong, this is a fundamental tenet of our justice system, that it thrives entirely on setting precedent with laws and in order for laws to come to maturity and have real meaning, there must be some degree of conflict between those who agree and those who disagree - if you give up, and don't fight 'what you can't do anything about' then you will never be able to do anything about it, these laws are still (yes still) in their infancy and have only been lightly tested, there is massive scope for very positive variation in terms of how the existing laws are actually implemented in practice, but it won't happen without a fight.

but you dont need to do anything about it if you understand that you can do wat you want -

let them make laws we r still going to do as we will

now to then take resposobility for your actions and there consiquensis is the gratests test of free thinking consousness -

shurely we as a animall/scoill awarness are at that point by now ?

mind i could be just wanking off but i live in hope

eternal optomist and all that - "r u an optomist? i hope so" in the words of some1 else far grater then me about comeing up with pithy 1 liners.....

[Bokonon]

but you dont need to do anything about it if you understand that you can do wat you want -

If you do nothing then the world may well change around you for the worse and actually stop you doing what you were previously able to do.

[unjulation]

If you do nothing then the world may well change around you for the worse and actually stop you doing what you were previously able to do.

i would fundermentaly disagre with that statement, i understand ware it comes from and the need to change the outside but fortantly/unfortantly im living within a socity ware actualy it doesnt matter what i do and they dont care what i do so its just an understanding of the space that i live within

basickly we are lucky in england that this is the case so why shouldnt we exploit it and stop wasteing energy on conspirisoys or laws that we actualy carnt change

if we just got on with it maybe socity will just follow a path of least ristitance that will finlly allow them/us to get over all this bs - but hay could be just me