pel; urgent advice req'd
Hobgoblin Music Crawley
Snail
>could give me a list of 10 in ascending order of importance we will
>endeavor to get as many into the interview as possible.
More background than anything (talk to the interviewer prior to the
interview to give them some background):
1) Why is a pub full of drunk football fans safer than 1 man and a
mandolin in an empty pub? The first doesn't require a license, the
second one will.
2) What is so dangerous about informal musical gatherings that it needs
to be licensed? Scotland, Ireland and most European countries realise
this.
Stephen
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limited Unix/C++/Java/Windows/X Windows/Multimedia
If you are suffering from RSI, contact me for advice.
Unsolicited email from spam merchants not welcome.
Jim Lawton
<hobgo...@btconnect.com> wrote:
1) The Government's stated intent is to have a *deregulatory bill*. In Scotland
there is no regulation of music in pubs up to normal closing time - this is true
deregulation. The new bill requires regulation of all music in pubs.
2) The Government's stated intent is to have a *deregulatory bill*. Presently
there is no regulation of casual musical events outside licensed premises - the
bill seeks to regulate all music, song and dance *everywhere*.
[ I personally wouldn't play on the private party / carol singing theme -
whatever the bill might say, I think it smacks of scaremongering to the wider
world ]
3) One of the planks of the Governments's case is the control of noise from
licensed premises, and yet it exempts jukeboxes and televised football matches
while seeking to control acoustic performances in the same premises.
4) A second plank is public safety, but these issues are already controlled by
other legislation, which is the same in Scotland as here, and it is hard to see
how activities which do not increase the occupancy of a pub beyond it's normal
occupancy can create a risk.
5) The government claims that the bill will free-up the licensing of public
entertainment because the entertainment part of the new premises licence will be
an opt-out, rather than an opt-in, and it won't cost any extra. This is
disingenuous when the new licenses will be administerd by local authorities who
may require extensive modifications (going by present behaviour) to premises
before permiting such use.
6) The Minister has poo-pood fears expressed by the Musicians Union and others.
He refers "guidance notes" to the bill. Guidance notes have no legal force, -
why won't he work with interested parties to amend the bill sensibly. Does he
not remember the farago of the "Dangerous Dogs" bill, caused entirely by
thoughtless drafting?
7) If the government's aim was to control noise and overcrowding, why didn't it
draft its legislation in that way, controlling effects rather than causes - then
it wouldn't matter if the noise stemmed from bag pipes, TV or an amplified rock
group - if it was above a certain level, it would be illegal.
Jim
john
1) Why is a pub full of drunk football fans, singing bawdy songs at the top
of their voices, safer than 1 man singing to an enthralled audience in a
pub? The first doesn't require a license, the
second one will.
Snail
>draft its legislation in that way, controlling effects rather than
>causes - then
>it wouldn't matter if the noise stemmed from bag pipes, TV or an amplified rock
>group - if it was above a certain level, it would be illegal.
This is great last point. One venue in Ely which the folk club was
kicked out from, was because of noise complaints from neighbours. The
source of the noise was the disco on a weekend, rather than the folk
club.
The disco of was playing a mixture of music, including techno, which due
to the physical characteristics of sudden attack, high volume bass,
could be heard streets away. So the venue lost its entertainment
license, when only some of the music(*) played on one evening a week was
causing a problem to the neighbours. Of course once they've lost the
license on noise grounds, they can't get it back even if they say "we'll
never play the music that caused the problem, or anything similar,
again". So they lose the license for everything.
I don't know if drunken behaviour was also cited as a problem, as this
particular pub is always full of sub-20 year olds filling their gills.
The pub still has its juke box, which can chuck out a fair bit of noise.
(*)I'm assuming it just a regular disco, with the full range of musical
styles. I'm not aware that they were doing full-on drum and bass or
techno evenings. The noise from the latter would be much greater than
from the former.
Dave McGlade
itself, it does absolutely nothing to control noise and safety. While it
might have some value for one-off events, it simply does not affect noise
and health-and-safety at all for regular events. For example, the fact that
fire doors were not blocked on the day the inspection took place says
nothing at all about whether they will be blocked six months later.
"Jim Lawton" <jiml...@tabbytail.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e313dfd...@text.news.ntlworld.com...
Andrew Jackson
perception about the Bill.
Howells and the DCMS think that because the PEL becomes part of the
alcohol licence, anyone who wants a licence can have one at no extra
cost - they'll put it in their alcohol licence application - so music
will flourish. Anyone can have a licence, so needing one isn't a
problem.
Some people outside Government are concerned that if the licensee
didn't do that, for whatever reason (forgetfulness, didn't realise
there was a folk scene in town, ticked the wrong box), then the music
would become illegal. So when Howells says "It's OK because the
licensee could apply", he is missing the point that the licensee might
not have done.
Other people are concerned that the focus is on alcohol licensing, but
all sorts of things such as churches and village halls have now been
dragged into the net. So when Howells says "It's OK because the
licensee now only needs one licence instead of two", he is missing the
point that many previously didn't need one in the first place.
Other people are concerned that television is exempt. This seems
completely barmy (not to mention smacking of undeclared outside
interests) - which is more disruptive, a school nativity play (Ł1
charge towards the new sports kit), a folk session with few
instruments and some people playing along, or the FA Cup final with
200 fans of both sides and cheap lager? When Howells says "One person
with amplification can be louder than three without", he is missing
the point that it's the amplification that's the problem, not the type
of entertainment or number of performers.
Other people are concerned because it's basically legislating a
problem that's not there. When Howells says noise nuisance and fire
safety are important, he's missing the point that these are covered
already by noise and fire regulations.
Other people say it's just not something legislation should be getting
into in the first place. What's next - Licensing of jokes, defining
acceptable topics of conversation in a public place, or regulation of
haircuts? Why shouldn't I be able to go to my local and sing?
Howells dismisses all these objections as irrelevant. He thinks
regulation is necessary, and no information supplied by, for example,
the Police or Fire Brigade will change his mind. He thinks the
"School plays need licences" argument is stupid - he did not intend
the Bill to cover them, so it doesn't. The fact that leading lawyers
interpret the Bill differently does not suggest to him that it's
worded wrongly, in that case - the lawyers are just stirring up
trouble.
He also thinks Local Government will interpret the rules flexibly, and
will not seek to raise revenue from charging for licenses - presumably
they get enough from library fines, parking charges, etc so would have
no desire to do so. No officials will impose the letter of the law -
presumably local government does not have any such jobsworth types.
Basically, Howells knows what he intends the Bill to do, and it is all
good stuff. Unfortunately, the Bill doesn't do what he says it does,
and even what he says it should do is questionable.
Snail
>into in the first place. What's next - Licensing of jokes, defining
The bill does license the telling of jokes. Telling a joke is an act of
entertainment. So if you tell a joke inside a public house its just as
licensable as me and my awfully dangerous mandolin.
>acceptable topics of conversation in a public place, or regulation of
>haircuts?
Haircuts, they are regulated (for men) in Singapore. That and the death
penalty for drug smuggling (not that I do this, but I don't want to get
stitched up and lose my life) are why I will never visit Singapore. I
have long hair and men are not allowed to have long hair in Singapore.
Stupid.
>Why shouldn't I be able to go to my local and sing?
Quite. That should be up to the landlord.
Chris Rockcliffe
> I think the most important point is that there is a difference of
> perception about the Bill...
(Big snip)
One of the best pieces I've read on this whole thing.
CR
Chris Rockcliffe
(snipped from post with some excellent points)
> [ I personally wouldn't play on the private party / carol singing theme -
> whatever the bill might say, I think it smacks of scaremongering to the wider
> world ]
I agree, I think this kind of thing is - and at times has been very
unhelpful.
> 3) One of the planks of the Governments's case is the control of noise from
> licensed premises, and yet it exempts jukeboxes and televised football matches
> while seeking to control acoustic performances in the same premises.
This angers me. Not just 'jukeboxes' as I understand it, but it exempts all
pre-recorded music... played over any kind of sound system - regardless of
noise levels. Given the volumes that music is played at some bars in our
cities - this is indeed a ludicrous ruling.
C R
Dominic Cronin
<jo...@tarrandean.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Or;
>1) Why is a pub full of drunk football fans, singing bawdy songs at the top
>of their voices, safer than 1 man singing to an enthralled audience in a
>pub? The first doesn't require a license, the
>second one will.
I don't think so. The singing of football songs will be illegal, just
as much as if it were a "Somerset folk singer" doing the singing. The
question of enforcement might be a bit more problematic though...
--
Dominic Cronin
Amsterdam
Steve Mellor
"Hobgoblin Music Crawley" <hobgo...@btconnect.com> wrote in message news:b0r4lr$f6i$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
ban...@cix.compulink.co.uk
chrisro...@scripto99.demon.co.uk (Chris Rockcliffe) wrote:
But it might mean that many folk artists can go and mime to their
latest CDs!
Jim Lawton
<chrisro...@scripto99.demon.co.uk> wrote:
snip
>
>This angers me. Not just 'jukeboxes' as I understand it, but it exempts all
>pre-recorded music... played over any kind of sound system - regardless of
>noise levels. Given the volumes that music is played at some bars in our
>cities - this is indeed a ludicrous ruling.
sorry, not correct :-
2 (1) The descriptions of entertainment are
(f) any playing of recorded music,
where the entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience and
is provided for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose,
of
entertaining that audience.
Jim
>
>C R
>
Chris Rockcliffe
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:32:48 +0000, Chris Rockcliffe
> <chrisro...@scripto99.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> This angers me. Not just 'jukeboxes' as I understand it, but it exempts all
>> pre-recorded music... played over any kind of sound system - regardless of
>> noise levels.
> sorry, not correct :-
>
> 2 (1) The descriptions of entertainment are
> (f) any playing of recorded music,
> where the entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience and
> is provided for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose,
> of entertaining that audience.
Which is saying what exactly? There isn't any point surely in just
repeating the Schedule here without any comment or explanation.
It's as clear as mud... what constitutes an 'audience' for starters... how
many people 1, 5, 50 500? Are they people in a - bar, pub, club, village
hall, shop, private room, what?
Do they only listen as an audience when facing a a wall or a stage together
or can they be facing sitting or standing in different directions in a room
passively - or spread across a number of rooms - even if there is no visual
element to the entertainment; are they then still an audience to the sound?
Is it saying that loud music (as against background level music) in any bar
is PEL licensable entertainment or is it not? When exactly does the
listening of music become the main or principal activity rather than as
incidental or ancillary to it. If music were deliberately 'annoying' to the
audience rather than purposefully entertaining - would/could it then be
exempt?
So 'entertainment' can be the playing of a recording of 'music' (but
presumably then not recordings of sounds of a non musical nature, such as
speeches) and so (played via a sound reproducing system?) in front of an
audience - and provided it is for the purpose of entertaining - it IS a
licensable entertainment.
So is it just music we're talking about or sound? If so why, if not why?
So a recording of a chap whistling Chopin is licensable?... but if he
switches to some questionably musical birdsong or imitates puffing steam
trains, he's exempt?
So are recordings of comedians, plays, poems, monologues, recitations,
political speeches, sound effects, mechanical noise etc etc all exempt from
sound recordings but included in live performance rules?
So which bars and clubs will be PEL licensed for pre-recorded music; coin
op' juke boxes; pub DJs; or the hotel with 'Girl from Ipanema' playing in
the bloody lifts.
The whole thing is a dubious and highly interpretable sham - entirely open
to equally dubious interpretation as any lawyer may in future decide - and
who will no doubt set precedents for all those that follow. That's not
unusual in law, but in this PEL instance, this pathetic wooly wording just
isn't good enough.
A clause too far? yes for many. But as the learned doctor would have it,
I'm just the victim of MU scaremongering... yeah, right doc?
Years ago I heard of a landlord who - in order to get the place cleared at
closing time - played the 'God Save The King'. At first, everyone stood
silently up to attention, but after a while they started to take no notice
of it - didn't even stand up. He had to stop playing it then. He'd have
been alright though now... it would hardly count as entertainment would it?
CR
George Hawes
ban...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> But it might mean that many folk artists can go and mime to their
> latest CDs!
Probably not, 'cause that might be construed a performance.
While I accept that we should resist "scaremongering" over, say, the Carol
Singing issue, IMO it IS worth pointing out that NO-ONE would reasonably
have expected the current PEL legislation to be used against a gathering in
a pub singing "Happy Birthday" - yet such a prosecution was brought
successfully.
What Howells believes the bill is intended to mean is irrelevent - all that
matters is what construction a court might attach to its words . . .
G.
--
George Hawes (george...@orange.net)
and Sawston Arts Festival: Next events: John Spiers & Jon Boden- 2nd March;
Ryburn Threestep - 28th March. Ask for details.
George Hawes
Chris Rockcliffe <chrisro...@scripto99.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Which is saying what exactly? There isn't any point surely in just
> repeating the Schedule here without any comment or explanation.
There's EVERY point, because that's ALL there is, in law. Everything
beyond that is mere speculation.
G
Molly
21:14:31 on Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Chris Rockcliffe <chrisrockcliffe@scripto9
9.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>So which bars and clubs will be PEL licensed for pre-recorded music; coin
>op' juke boxes; pub DJs; or the hotel with 'Girl from Ipanema' playing in
>the bloody lifts.
I've just had a thought! Could this bill be used to stop people playing
Vivaldi at me over the phone when I'm "on hold"?
>Years ago I heard of a landlord who - in order to get the place cleared at
>closing time - played the 'God Save The King'. At first, everyone stood
>silently up to attention, but after a while they started to take no notice
>of it - didn't even stand up. He had to stop playing it then. He'd have
>been alright though now... it would hardly count as entertainment would it?
I remember when everybody stood silently for the National Anthem at the
end of films in the cinema. Then people started slipping out during it,
so they shifted it to the beginning of the film. Then they dropped it
altogether.
--
Molly
Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person
who doesn't get it.
Jim Lawton
<chrisro...@scripto99.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Jim Lawton27/1/03 6:31 PM
>
>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:32:48 +0000, Chris Rockcliffe
>> <chrisro...@scripto99.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> This angers me. Not just 'jukeboxes' as I understand it, but it exempts all
>>> pre-recorded music... played over any kind of sound system - regardless of
>>> noise levels.
>
>> sorry, not correct :-
>>
>> 2 (1) The descriptions of entertainment are
>
>> (f) any playing of recorded music,
>
>> where the entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience and
>> is provided for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose,
>> of entertaining that audience.
>
>Which is saying what exactly? There isn't any point surely in just
>repeating the Schedule here without any comment or explanation.
But there's nothing *to* add..
You said "it exempts all pre-recorded music"
The bill says - what I wrote. I can, if you like make a sentence of the bit I
posted :-
"The descriptions of entertainment [is] any playing of recorded music, where the
entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience and is provided for the
purpose ... of entertaining that audience."
Now you and others have to decide if what you said is correct or not.
JS Newby
news:f55491bb4...@onetel.net.uk...
>
> While I accept that we should resist "scaremongering" over, say, the Carol
> Singing issue, IMO it IS worth pointing out that NO-ONE would reasonably
> have expected the current PEL legislation to be used against a gathering
in
> a pub singing "Happy Birthday" - yet such a prosecution was brought
> successfully.
>
> What Howells believes the bill is intended to mean is irrelevent - all
that
> matters is what construction a court might attach to its words . . .
>
says (of course that is important), but that the minister responsible
(Howells) does not appear to be familiar with it, or understand it himself.
He is trying to blind people to the bill's shortcomings (in its present
form) by promoting his own understanding of it to the public and his
colleagues as representing what it actually says. I don't know whether he is
doing this from laziness, ignorance or stupidity (being unable to grasp what
its implications are), or from some misguided attempts to cover his backside
(refusing to admit it could possibly be wrong and need any further work).
I'm sorry to say I have no confidence in him and can't see how we can get
the bill changed while he is responsible for it.
To me, the fact that Howells seems to be trying to steamroller the bill
through regardless of its content is more worrying than what the bill itself
says.
Just my 2p's worth.
Chris Rockcliffe
> Now you and others have to decide if what you said is correct or not.
LOL.
Playing 'devil's advocate' is a legitimate stance?
Chris R
Terry
"Chris Rockcliffe" <chrisro...@scripto99.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BA5C4031.138E5%chrisro...@scripto99.demon.co.uk...
Yep!
Best way I've ever found of beating someone's arguement is to argue their
cause first.
Terry
Peter Thomas
<tink...@hotmail.com> writes
don't personally agree with - you really have to think.
--
Peter Thomas
Chris Ryall
In group:uk.music.folk, Mon, 27 Jan 2003
(26l)
>>So which bars and clubs will be PEL licensed for pre-recorded music; coin
>>op' juke boxes; pub DJs; or the hotel with 'Girl from Ipanema' playing in
>>the bloody lifts.
>
>I've just had a thought! Could this bill be used to stop people
>playing Vivaldi at me over the phone when I'm "on hold"?
Nice try - but that's not entertainment is it?
--
Chris Ryall (snip spamtram
Wirral-UK to email me)