:disgust: The Velvet Rope Thread
[br] Kim Howells (UK Minister for Culture and the Arts) is quoted in the Robbie / Downloading thread as saying with regard to the statement by Williams "He has an £80 million contract and probably doesn't worry too much about all those singers, songwriters, musicians, and music publishers who depend entirely for a living on receiving honest revenue from sales of their product."
Just to be absolutely clear here, Kim Howells is trying to murder live music and entertainment with draconian laws he is seeking to rush through the UK parliament. The "Two in a bar" rule, as it is known (see here ) will practically destroy (live) entertainment in the UK whilst simultaneously raising money for the government.
Below are just a few of the ways this bill will impact.
110,000 on-licensed premises in England and Wales (pubs, bars, restaurants etc) would lose their right to allow one or two musicians to perform. A form of this limited exemption from licensing control dates back to at least 1899.
Broadcast entertainment on satellite or terrestrial tv, or radio, is to be exempt from licensing under this Bill.
15,500 Churches outside London would lose their licensing exemption for public concerts.
5,000 registered members clubs lose their licensing exemption for public entertainment.
The very wide definitions in the Bill would cover carol singing and bell ringing (unless incidental to a religious meeting or service).
Thousands of private events, hitherto exempt, become licensable if 'for consideration and with a view to profit'.
The same applies to any private performance raising money for charity.
Tens of thousands of private wedding receptions, parties, and corporate functions would become illegal unless licensed (the wording of the Bill suggests that payment to musicians triggers the licensing requirement).
A new licensing criterion is introduced: the provision of 'entertainment facilities'. This could mean professional rehearsal studios, broadasting studios etc will be illegal unless licensed.
Musicians could be guilty of a criminal offence if they don't check first that premises hold the appropriate authorisation for their performance.
Buskers similarly potential criminals - unless they perform under a licensing authorisation.
The maximum penalty for unlicensed performance remains a £20,000 fine and six months in prison.
Two in a bar horror stories
Daft law encourages daft enforcement. If we get a 'none in a bar' Licensing Act rest assured we will see local authorities taking enforcement action in pubs and bars that do not hold the permission for live music. As now, there will be no need for a noise complaint or safety risk. The threats of criminal prosecution will be made to landlords and restaurateurs providing solo, unamplified, performance. Of course, no dancing at all is permitted without a licence, either within premises or outside (unless under a temporary authorisation, but no more than five times per year). Max penalty: £20,000 fine and six months in prison.
You may find some of these stories incredible. I can assure you they are all verifiable, and represent the tip of the enforcement iceberg.
Council enforcement relies heavily on anonymous tip-offs from licensees jealous that a neighbouring business might be allowing live music or dancing without a PEL (and without paying the fee). It is common for local authorities to send licensing officers to monitor performances incognito. This happened recently in Belper (Derbyshire), Helpston (Peterborough), Oxford, Weymouth, Greenwich, Hackney, Camden, Southwark and Westminster. None of these enforcements was triggered by a noise complaint.
In Belper, a council officer accompanied by the local police licensing officer busted the long-standing local folk club. More than two people were singing and the pub held no PEL. The folk club thought it was operating legitimately as a private members club, which made it PEL exempt. They slipped up in allowing the undercover officers to gain entry without registering as members 48 hours in advance. The club was forced to move elsewhere. This was reported widely in the local press and was raised in Parliament during the adjournment debate on PELs on 27 February. In Oxford and Weymouth last year, following the surveillance operation, two pub landlords were threatened with criminal prosecution if they didn't stop folk sessions or get a PEL. Both councils quoted case law from 1793 alleging (erroneously) that this allowed them to count members of the public as performers if they sang (i.e. that made the number more than two allowed without a PEL).
In Greenwich earlier this year the landlord of the Cricketers was sent a letter (I have a copy) which not only threatened prosecution, but stated that about a dozen members of the public were present at a folk session, they had been observed tapping their feet 'and were thus being entertained'.
In Camden a long-standing gig at La Brocca in West End Lane was busted and the licensee threatened with a £20,000 fine because a music student had been seen jamming with the regular duo. A few months later, in Waterstone's bookshop in Hampstead, an eminent young string quartet was forced to sit in full concert dress with their instruments while a CD was played in lieu of their performance. The Council had intercepted the bookshop's flyers advertising the live music as an accompaniment to a book reading by the former leader of the Amadeus string quartet, Professor Sigmund Nissel. 100 guests, including VIPs, witnessed the non-performance.
In Southwark, pub landlord Jim Yalton reported that the council threatened him with prosecution because he allowed OAPs to sing along to an organist who specialised old time hits. The British Institute of Innkeepers publishes guidance which warns against 'encouraging community style singing' since this is a criminal offence without a PEL.
In Hackney, Steve Powell, landlord of the Globe, was fined £500 for allowing customers to sing Happy Birthday along with a duo celebrating the birthday of one of the musicians.
In Westminster, Lee Lindsay, a musician who runs a popular singers' night, was prosecuted last month because - as in Belper - two undercover council officers were able to gain entry to her event on a particular night without registering in advance. The officers reported (I have copies of all the documents) that not only did they see more than two musicians playing, but 'one woman danced for a short time'.
In Helpston, near Peterborough, the Blue Bell, a small pub with a long-standing reputation as a folk venue was busted by council officers. Again they acted on an anonymous tip-off - no noise complaint. This in spite of the fact that the landlady had already applied for a PEL, and had almost completed works recommended following the local authority inspections. The council is now deciding whether or not to pursue the prosecution (which has become something of a cause celebre in the folk community).
I would urge all readers of The Rope, from whatever perspective of the industry, to familiarize themselves with the content of this bill and what exactly it means for live entertainment in the UK by visiting the Musicians Union site web page and reading further.
I would also ask that those minded to do so should please sign, and publicise, the relevant petition. Aspiring UK musicians need your support before this Government succeeds in stifling an already under funded and much maligned fledgling talent base.
Thank you
[br] Kim Howells (UK Minister for Culture and the Arts) is quoted in the Robbie / Downloading thread as saying with regard to the statement by Williams "He has an £80 million contract and probably doesn't worry too much about all those singers, songwriters, musicians, and music publishers who depend entirely for a living on receiving honest revenue from sales of their product."
Just to be absolutely clear here, Kim Howells is trying to murder live music and entertainment with draconian laws he is seeking to rush through the UK parliament. The "Two in a bar" rule, as it is known (see here ) will practically destroy (live) entertainment in the UK whilst simultaneously raising money for the government.
Below are just a few of the ways this bill will impact.
110,000 on-licensed premises in England and Wales (pubs, bars, restaurants etc) would lose their right to allow one or two musicians to perform. A form of this limited exemption from licensing control dates back to at least 1899.
Broadcast entertainment on satellite or terrestrial tv, or radio, is to be exempt from licensing under this Bill.
15,500 Churches outside London would lose their licensing exemption for public concerts.
5,000 registered members clubs lose their licensing exemption for public entertainment.
The very wide definitions in the Bill would cover carol singing and bell ringing (unless incidental to a religious meeting or service).
Thousands of private events, hitherto exempt, become licensable if 'for consideration and with a view to profit'.
The same applies to any private performance raising money for charity.
Tens of thousands of private wedding receptions, parties, and corporate functions would become illegal unless licensed (the wording of the Bill suggests that payment to musicians triggers the licensing requirement).
A new licensing criterion is introduced: the provision of 'entertainment facilities'. This could mean professional rehearsal studios, broadasting studios etc will be illegal unless licensed.
Musicians could be guilty of a criminal offence if they don't check first that premises hold the appropriate authorisation for their performance.
Buskers similarly potential criminals - unless they perform under a licensing authorisation.
The maximum penalty for unlicensed performance remains a £20,000 fine and six months in prison.
Two in a bar horror stories
Daft law encourages daft enforcement. If we get a 'none in a bar' Licensing Act rest assured we will see local authorities taking enforcement action in pubs and bars that do not hold the permission for live music. As now, there will be no need for a noise complaint or safety risk. The threats of criminal prosecution will be made to landlords and restaurateurs providing solo, unamplified, performance. Of course, no dancing at all is permitted without a licence, either within premises or outside (unless under a temporary authorisation, but no more than five times per year). Max penalty: £20,000 fine and six months in prison.
You may find some of these stories incredible. I can assure you they are all verifiable, and represent the tip of the enforcement iceberg.
Council enforcement relies heavily on anonymous tip-offs from licensees jealous that a neighbouring business might be allowing live music or dancing without a PEL (and without paying the fee). It is common for local authorities to send licensing officers to monitor performances incognito. This happened recently in Belper (Derbyshire), Helpston (Peterborough), Oxford, Weymouth, Greenwich, Hackney, Camden, Southwark and Westminster. None of these enforcements was triggered by a noise complaint.
In Belper, a council officer accompanied by the local police licensing officer busted the long-standing local folk club. More than two people were singing and the pub held no PEL. The folk club thought it was operating legitimately as a private members club, which made it PEL exempt. They slipped up in allowing the undercover officers to gain entry without registering as members 48 hours in advance. The club was forced to move elsewhere. This was reported widely in the local press and was raised in Parliament during the adjournment debate on PELs on 27 February. In Oxford and Weymouth last year, following the surveillance operation, two pub landlords were threatened with criminal prosecution if they didn't stop folk sessions or get a PEL. Both councils quoted case law from 1793 alleging (erroneously) that this allowed them to count members of the public as performers if they sang (i.e. that made the number more than two allowed without a PEL).
In Greenwich earlier this year the landlord of the Cricketers was sent a letter (I have a copy) which not only threatened prosecution, but stated that about a dozen members of the public were present at a folk session, they had been observed tapping their feet 'and were thus being entertained'.
In Camden a long-standing gig at La Brocca in West End Lane was busted and the licensee threatened with a £20,000 fine because a music student had been seen jamming with the regular duo. A few months later, in Waterstone's bookshop in Hampstead, an eminent young string quartet was forced to sit in full concert dress with their instruments while a CD was played in lieu of their performance. The Council had intercepted the bookshop's flyers advertising the live music as an accompaniment to a book reading by the former leader of the Amadeus string quartet, Professor Sigmund Nissel. 100 guests, including VIPs, witnessed the non-performance.
In Southwark, pub landlord Jim Yalton reported that the council threatened him with prosecution because he allowed OAPs to sing along to an organist who specialised old time hits. The British Institute of Innkeepers publishes guidance which warns against 'encouraging community style singing' since this is a criminal offence without a PEL.
In Hackney, Steve Powell, landlord of the Globe, was fined £500 for allowing customers to sing Happy Birthday along with a duo celebrating the birthday of one of the musicians.
In Westminster, Lee Lindsay, a musician who runs a popular singers' night, was prosecuted last month because - as in Belper - two undercover council officers were able to gain entry to her event on a particular night without registering in advance. The officers reported (I have copies of all the documents) that not only did they see more than two musicians playing, but 'one woman danced for a short time'.
In Helpston, near Peterborough, the Blue Bell, a small pub with a long-standing reputation as a folk venue was busted by council officers. Again they acted on an anonymous tip-off - no noise complaint. This in spite of the fact that the landlady had already applied for a PEL, and had almost completed works recommended following the local authority inspections. The council is now deciding whether or not to pursue the prosecution (which has become something of a cause celebre in the folk community).
I would urge all readers of The Rope, from whatever perspective of the industry, to familiarize themselves with the content of this bill and what exactly it means for live entertainment in the UK by visiting the Musicians Union site web page and reading further.
I would also ask that those minded to do so should please sign, and publicise, the relevant petition. Aspiring UK musicians need your support before this Government succeeds in stifling an already under funded and much maligned fledgling talent base.
Thank you
Facebook
Twitter