If you want a quick guide to the bees that buzz in the national bonnet, you
can do worse than skim through the experimental “e-petitions” website — petitions.pm.gov.uk
.
Downing Street set it up before Christmas to enable citizens to gather
signatures electronically over a period of their choice and petition the
Prime Minister. Once there are more than a hundred signers, he has to e-mail
you all an answer. It is done with the mySociety charity, and shows
remarkable latitude in the subjects it permits — including banning Islam,
bringing back hanging and allowing pet shops to sell elephants. It has been
taken up with enthusiasm and a perhaps slightly forlorn hopefulness, and now
spans a lovely spectrum of complaint and idealism.
Some petitions are predictable — hundreds of thousands oppose the hunting ban,
road pricing, ID cards and inheritance tax. On the other hand, so far only
12 people want to save the BBC Television Centre. Some have no supporters
beyond their founder; notably the man who wants waste land and “unused”
fields available for motorcycle scrambles (“Why can’t a few people put up
with a little bike noise?”). Or the deadpan, mischievous spirit who
petitions the PM “to confirm that the Equality Act will enable gay
pig-breeders to use the services of halal abattoirs”.
The best are those that alert the reader to some absurdity in the law that
rarely attracts the attention of the media pack. Note the ex-Marine who,
irritated by the Muslim constable who wouldn’t shake hands, tells us that he
was barred from applying to the police force merely because he has two
inoffensive forearm tattoos: one Royal Marines motif and one panther. “It
seems a shame that someone like me who gave excellent service in Northern
Ireland and Iraq can’t even get an interview, while that WPC can behave the
way she did.”
But it was another revelation on regulation that tempted me most, and
demonstrated the usefulness of the site. By yesterday morning 7,763 had
signed, saying: “We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to recognise
that music and dance should not be restricted by burdensome licensing
regulations.”
This relates to the Licensing Act 2005, and the changes concerning
entertainment in pubs and clubs. According to the Department for Culture
this “provides increased opportunities for musicians and other entertainers”
while protecting against “unnecessary disturbance”. It changed the rules on
full entertainment licences, while ending the comfy old “two-in-a-bar” rule,
whereby a couple of musicians with a guitar, whistle, accordion or whatever
could strike up in the corner anytime, as long as the landlord agreed. Now,
in order to permit this behaviour, the publican without a full-on licence
must apply two weeks ahead for a temporary licence and pay £21 per tune-up.
An exemption was made at the last minute for Morris dancers (the DCMS knows
what’s good for it, those guys have big black boots and sturdy staves). But
otherwise the ban stands, even for unamplified music and song. The
departmental website is defensive, graciously saying that “spontaneous
singing, for instance of ‘Happy Birthday’, will not face the penalty
(£20,000 and six months in prison)”. Well, thanks, Tessa! Good to know some
liberties endure. But then you look down further and find out that there is
no regulation at all of “broadcast entertainment” or jukeboxes.
So a pub can blast out Chris Moyles’s jovial obscenities, Big Brother,
or banging garage music without any licence at all; but if a folkish couple
with a wooden guitar start up Sweet Polly Oliver in a tiny bar on a
winter’s evening, or Old Walter incautiously picks up the spoons, the
landlord is potentially looking at ruin and prison bars. It is positively
Cromwellian. As one campaigner puts it: “The present situation in which
widescreen televisions in pubs do not require a licence, while a single
acoustic musician or singer does . . . testifies to the extent to which the
present Government is the patsy of big business, particularly in the
entertainment industries.” Or as another mourns: “Even Ice Queen Thatcher
didn’t do this to us woodland folk.”
The department did some MORI research last autumn, and will protest that lots
of full licences have been applied for, that licencees are “satisfied” and
that it is wonderful that larger groups of musicians now appear in places
that once stuck to two. However, look more closely and you find that of the places which used the old “two in a bar” rule, nearly 40 per cent have not
applied for full licences. Many of them can’t, because of the legal cost and
the need for new fire doors, wider exits, extra lavatories etc; a little
rural pub can’t afford to be treated like a crammed nightclub, and therefore
withdraws. Or else — if it knows that the man with the concertina is
thinking of turning up, provided his old van isn’t playing up again — it
sends off £21 for a temporary licence, and remembers to lodge a copy of the
application with “the relevant chief officer of police” no later than ten
working days earlier. The result has been the loss of many well-liked,
regular but semi-spontaneous pub sessions. Ask any folkie.
In Scotland, of course, none of this nonsense applies. If Gordon Brown is
moved to start singing The Ballad of Glencoe without prior warning in
his constituency’s smallest pub, he may freely do so. Perhaps his first act
at No 10 should be to pass an elegant little amendment saying that yes, any
citizen may burst into unamplified song or dance a jig, anytime, anywhere.
Because it is not any government’s damn business, frankly, to stop us. Or he
could bring back the two-in-a-bar rule, with a shrug and a smile and a hey
nonny no.
Or extend it to three, by way of apology. Then Old Walter can play on the
spoons without incurring the wrath of Her Majesty’s Government.
The problem with the controversial Music Licensing Act, 2003, is that it got mixed up and over complicated because of its association with alcohol.
Aggressive music can cause problems because it stirs up the wrong emotions. In contrast, soothing music has a calming effect on people. Different types of music is played in films to set the mood for the scene been viewed. In supermarkets the choice of music has been known to influence sales. In other words, music can be used to control the behaviour of people.
I know of a pub who cured unruly behaviour by engaging two live keyboard players, one on a piano and the other on a Hammond organ, to play the right kind of music at the right volume. The pub takings soared until the owner-landlord, a former Moss Empire manager who knew show business, sold the pub at a huge profit. The new owner had no idea about the value of music with the result that the business declined. The moral of story should be obvious.
Cled Griffiin, Neath, West Glamorgan
For Libby Purves - Folkies unite! 6th Feb 07
There are people in the organ and keyboard world who are working hard to get a final boost on the e-Petition before the deadline of 11th June. Via my MP, I have listed 12 key areas of concern in a detailed document which is being placed before Tessa Jowell for her consideration and response. We are living in a mutli-cultural and multi-racial society but the Government seems determined to take away our freedom of expression on cultural, religious and other grounds. The Government reported a 15% rise in alcohol abuse on last year, placing ever increasing financial pressure on the NHS, police, courts at the taxpery's expense. I, for one, appeal to the Government to urgently review the legislation of The PEL Act (2003) and allow all law abiding live musicians and professionals - maintaining our heritage and traditions, to continue without hindrance. We are not the law breakers but are being unfairly financially punished by those who do.
June Clark, Peterborough, UK
As a musician working for 30yrs under the "two in a bar" rule I think this was also barmy. When the law was passed it probably made good sense. As modern technology means that a solo artist with backing tracks, karaoke or disco can make considerably more noise than a full rock band - limiting the numbers of players to two really doesn't work.
I do not understand why musicians should be stigmatised. It obviously isn't about noise or public order as has been proven. Maybe the Inland Revenue are are worried that musicians are getting a free pint - or even worse some petrol money....I can assure the revenue that there is no money to be made playing in pubs.
Our licenced properties should be safe and accessible whether or not live music is performed. The British music scene over the years has been a hot bed of creativity which has been exported to the world and we (as a nation) have reaped the financial and cultural benefits. Lets have a law that protects our future,
Dr Bob, Swindon, Wiltshire
If this law is actually enforced (unlike the law about driving while using a hand-held mobile phone), it will simply drive pub sessions underground. The musicians will continue their sessions in their own houses, beyond the reach of this badly thought out law.
The losers will be the pub landlords who will lose custom, and the general public who will miss out on some excellent musical entertainment, and have to suffer more widescreen TVs and jukeboxes.
Martin Milner, London, UK
I'm surprised the Government got away with this Act for many reasons; for a start it reduces the numbers of places people can play any music, and after all it is the middle classes, the New Labour-voting middle classes, who spend all the money getting their kids music lessons.
But then Charles Clarke, who had responsibility for this Act for a while, notoriously said, when asked why you coul have twelve pipers in a bar in Scotland, but not an old folkie with his guitar in a bar in England, said "This isn't Scotland."
Or Kim Howells, who said his idea of Hell is three traditional singers in a Somerset pub. With people like that, who hate their own national culture, what chance do we have ? And, yes, it is the big unlicenced screens and blaring discos that cause the fights and riots; Someone was stabbed outside a pub, after a big screen football match, just down the road from me the other week; in Muswell Hill, North London. Safe, suburban, middle-class Muswell Hill.
Pete Renyard, East Finchley, London
No-one ever brought down a government fighting drunkenly in the street after a football match or a disco. But folk songs, they might be subversive.
I'm surprised the middle-class New Labour voters let this Act get through, after all they are the ones paying for their kids to have music lessons, and where are they going to play now ?
But the Cabinet is notoriously philistine - Kim Howells said his idea of Hell was three traditional singers in a Somerset pub. With people who hate their own national culture like that, what can one expect ?
Pete Renyard, East Finchley, London
I can see that one of the real threats facing informal music- making in pubs will not come from the police deciding to intervene but from disgruntled pub goers and/or neighbours putting pressure on landlords by threatening to report them to the police for breaking the law.
Peter Hollins, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
The problem, as usual, is the government and local councilors trying to grub up a few extra votes from anywhere they can - in this case people who go to bed at 9:30 on a Saturday evening and expect the rest of the world to shut down around them.
I live on the high street of a small town. There are several pubs, all of which would put on live music of one kind or another, if they weren't constantly harassed by environmental health responding to single, unjustified complaints about noise from miserable people who just can't bear the thought of anyone else enjoying themselves.
So people get drunk, throw up in the street and fight. You don't need a license for that.
Phil Trory, Alcester, UK
A music editor In the Washington Post started a review of my band with "Peter Benson learned his craft in the pubs and folk clubs of his native Yorkshire..."
With this law in place, how can anybody "learn their craft?" The craft of community singing? of seeing the subtle signs of what works and what bores people? of sharing song ideas? What's it going to do to the rugby crowd? This is nuts!
Sing us another one...
Peter Benson, Columbia, MD, USA
How about a nice simple (even for non-musical politicians) modification to the act . . .
Exemption for acoustic-only, i.e. no 'lectrics, no amps, just good old-fashioned instruments and voices.
Wouldn't that make a reasonable rule-of-thumb distinction between a few people getting together for their own entertainment and a performance slot that could reasonably expect to need a licence?
Failing that, maybe the rest of us should invest in in some big boots & sturdy sticks and start Morris dancing while we play or sing.
Pamela Webster, Newbury,
Folk Music has been around long before any of this government and will remain so long after they are all gone (hopefully at the next election)My pleaseure is to go out on a couple of nights of the week and play unamplified music in sessions and singarounds. Why should the publican have to have a licence for this; It beggars belief. I for one will be glad to see the back of Blair; he has done nothing for me and now he want to stop my music. I know where i would like to put his guitar.
David Green, Northwich, Cheshire
The best thing to do with Laws which are stupid, is to ignore them. We are all supposed to be Europeans now, aren't we? So let's join in their idealism. What do you imagine the French would do with such a law ?(Keep it clean, please).
After all, the police ignore the Law when it suits them to. Look at the 'Speed Czar' in Sheffield. He's just been prosecuted yet again for speeding, but its OK, he can't say who was in the police car. Oh really? Can anyone turn up and take a police car now.? Where's mine?
Just get on with the singing and dancing. If the thought police arrive, tell them you're 'foreign', it's your 'only effective way of communication' and they should be pround that you are overcoming their disability.
Or is that suggestion tantamount to suggesting that we break yet another of Tony's laws? Whooppee!
Charlotte Peters Rock, Knutsford, Cheshire
I'm not a folkie but a jazzer (and no, not a wooly jumper or even a striped blazer in sight).
So glad that this issue is being taken up and discussed/opposed by a wider audience.
Laws are passed and I feel that most people, other than musicians in this case, may not have realised the real implications of a new piece of legislation, or even noticed.
Thoroughly depressing to live in a country that treats live music in this way.
Deirdre Cartwright, London, England
As a former adviser to the Musicians Union about this legislation I support the live music licensing petition discussed in Libby Purves' article: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/licensing/
The new Licensing Act is a threat to both freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Indeed, the Joint Committee of Human Rights at Parliament warned as much in several reports when the Act was a Bill, 2002/3. On 3 July 2003 in the House of Lords, Lord Anthony Lester said: 'I find the distinction drawn between live music in pubs and dead music or dead entertainment on mass television in pubs arbitrary and somewhat discriminatory. Perhaps it reflects some kind of cultural bias. I believe that it shows a complete lack of proportion to insist on unnecessary regulation in licensing. .... if necessary, the courts will have to use the principle of proportionality in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights if unnecessary and heavy-handed use of regulation takes place in this area...'
Hamish Birchall, London,
Our fight against HItler in WWII was a lost cause. Tyranny has won the day.
Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England
As a former adviser to the Musicians Union on this legislation I support the live music licensing petition: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/licensing/
The Joint Committee of Human Rights at Parliament warned that the new licensing laws threatened freedom of expression in several reports when the Act was a Bill, 2002/3. And Lord Lester said: 'I find the distinction drawn between live music in pubs and dead music or dead entertainment on mass television in pubs arbitrary and somewhat discriminatory. Perhaps it reflects some kind of cultural bias. I believe that it shows a complete lack of proportion to insist on unnecessary regulation in licensing. .... if necessary, the courts will have to use the principle of proportionality in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights if unnecessary and heavy-handed use of regulation takes place in this area...'
Lords Hansard 3 July 2003 Column 1058
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldhansrd/vo030703/text/30703-18.htm
Hamish Birchall, London,
You may be allowed to sing "Happy Birthday", but is is copywrite, so make sure the landlord fills in his PRS form or again, he will be liable.
Geoff Wright, Doncaster, UK
When the present legislation was proposed, there was a vigorous campaign to inject some common sense, but without success apart from the very limited exemption for morris and similar dancing and its associated music. It seemed a classic case of "Our minds are made up: please don't cloud the issue with facts".
But is this law enforceable? If someone is prosecuted for singing or making music (for their own amusement, not for a paying audience, and not so loud as to cause a nuisance), would they not have a very good defence under human rights law? Has there ever been a test case?
Richard Mellish, Harrow,
The full response to the earlier (and well-supported) petition can be see on the following site.
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page4259.asp
It includes the following undertaking.
"We have also given an undertaking that we will review the existing descriptions of entertainment in the Act six to twelve months after the end of the transition period. If the Act has had an unintended, disproportionate negative effect on the provision of live music -or other forms of regulated entertainment-, there are powers already in the Bill to modify the position through secondary legislation.
However we believe that the provisions in the Licensing Act will allow live music and other regulated entertainment to thrive.
Morris dancing and dancing of a similar nature are exempt from the requirement for a licence under the Act.
The Department will also be setting up a forum, comprising representatives of performers, venue operators, local authorities and others whose task it will be to advertise the advantages of the reforms and to maximise the take-up."
Roger Gall, Portland, Dorset
Thank god the Morris dancers were saved!
Sarah, London,
I personally think it's a fantastic idea to get more people involved in politics. It's important people engage in whatever way they can. Even if it's to petition for more wooly jumpers for folk singers!
Sarah, London,
perhaps there's a fear of the lumpen-rousing power of
'protest' songs, bearing in mind the paradigm shift
possibly brought about by a guy with a guitar and a harminica in the cellar bars of new york in the 1960's.
dr venables preller, Warminster, UK
The really offensive thing about all this is that the government makes a rule and then turns a blind eye on those whom it choses. So Tessa won't prosecute for singing Happy Birthday. No doubt we're expected to bow and scrape to this politician for her unlawful generosity. The same is true for her Listed Places of Worship Scheme. The treasury ( or the European Soviet Union) say we all have to pay VAT, and then the treasury gives a grant to LPoWs. Why does the treasury have money to make a grant? Why are LPoWs favoured but other restorations not?
If we're going to have laws they should apply across the board. It is shuddering to think that ministers have so much discretion over the application of the laws they enforce on the rest of us.
Philippa Pirie, London, England
'My view is that there will be an explosion in live music as a result of removing the discriminatory two-in-a-bar provision'
(Lord McIntosh, House of Lords, 26 November 2002).
It is not a very noisy explosion - is it?
Could a change from situation where some form of live music (if limited) could take place in all the pubs in England and Wales - to one where any form of live music is now made illegal in 40% of them - really be described as an explosion in live music?
Roger Gall, Portland, Dorset
It seems a clever idea on several levels.
With the website as a cheap focus group of disaffection, future legislation can be framed in ways less likely to bug the electorate, now they’ve aired their foibles. Some genuine innovative ideas may emerge, worthy of claiming credit for, after the petition has been forgotten. There’s a useful feedback element, without the expense of pollsters and surveys. Could some petitions be ‘planted,’ as a kite-flying way of gauging reaction? Possibly damaging fallout from specific cases, such as legal challenge, may be averted, if grievances can seem to be aired, albeit far from the light of day.
Finally, the entertainment aspect, which you have rightly pinpointed, reminds us how unnecessary much regulatory change is, except possibly to relieve the tedium of iterative compliance with the previous regime.
dr venables preller, Warminster, UK
What a trite article by Ms Purves. So far over 672,000 have requested government to scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy, and 23,000 wish to see the end of inheritance tax. A further 22,500 want to see the hunting act abolished. Not bad for the latter petitioners bearing in mind that the Countryside Alliance has only 100,000 members and many families share computers. Yet Ms Purves can only rattle on about music and the Licensing Act 2005.
Never mind. The top three petitioners, totalling 717,500 know that government will never listen to their pleas. However, pop singer Blair and his boys might consider taking note of the problem with folk music in pubs in their attempt to preserve 'Britishness' their latest headline grabbing initiative.
Nice to know that none of this rubbish affects Scotland. But neither does University top up fees or old folk having to pay for the care in their final years on this earth. But after all, these are subsidised by taxpayers in England and Wales. Good on the Jocks.
E Saunders, Richmond Surrey, England
The comments of Kim Howells illustrate the all too common behaviour of trying to get a cheap laugh, or make yourself seem superior by mocking someone, or something, else. Folk and traditional music has often been a target of this, particularly by those who wouldn't recognise the music of their own country if it hit them in the face. It is wonderful to see Libby's comments - they are a refreshing change from the usual media easy-mock attitude.
I play a lot in pub sessions, usually English or French music, but some Irish, Welsh etc. and get tired of the number of people that assume that what I am playing is Irish. "It sounds too much fun to be English" is a common comment.
One effect of this law will be to affect carol singers - a licence will also be needed from them to drop into the pub! How mad are we in this country to allow our politicians to do this to us?
Susan Bell, Harrow, England
Speaking as someone who has suffered serious noise issues from a nearby pub - personally I think there is not enough legislation to protect neighbours from noise emanating from licensed premises.
In the old days when pubs were restricted to closing at around 11 each night perhaps the two in a bar rule was largely acceptable. Always assuming the police made sure the pub closed according to those hours - which was not something we could rely on even then. But now when a neighbour can be disturbed up to 24 hours a day with impunity - it is not.
I am a music lover and a musician but some publicans play fast and loose with the licensing laws as they stand as it is. It takes years of hard slog to get a noisy pub dealt with by the environmental health and all the 'benefit of the doubt' goes to the publican. Even a guilty conviction only results in a relatively small fine compared with the money made by flouting the rules. In the meantime we suffer alas not in silence.
Anonymous, Glamorgan,
Has the music industry sought legal advice to ascertain whether the new licensing laws with regard to music performance are in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998?
Ian, London,
Why is music any different from a pub quiz?
If it disturbs the neighbourhood then the venue deserves to get its next annual renewal turned down. Otherwise why bother with the paperwork? I can’t believe that the licensing authority makes any money after they’ve had their staffing and other admin costs so there’s no business case. It works perfectly well in Scotland and Ireland where they’re proud of their music tradition.
The Stones played their first gig at the Station Hotel, Richmond for a pound each. The Beatles started in the Casbah Coffee Club in Liverpool.
Ironically this has now been given a Grade 2 listing yet I doubt if either would have ever got going as a music venue with today’s nanny-state attitude.
I’m in a pub-rock band called Redzone and we’re at the Hop Poles in Alton this Saturday. It’s free admission and we get about £30 each out of it. Rehearsal time at the local brownie hut is £15, a packet of strings about a fiver and a pair of valves for a Marshall amplifier about £79 so on a good day we break even.
For the folkies it’s a different matter. The hard working people who run the clubs certainly don’t do it for the money. June Tabor, one of the finest singers in the land, went back to being a librarian for a while after a fine career in the 70s although went back in the 90s as a full time performer being voted folk singer of the year at the BBC2004 Folk Awards.
Just cut out the paperwork and let the market at this very fragile end of the music world get on with its life.
Jeremy Maltby, Alton, Hampshire
Well said Libby, but "Department for Culture" ? Don't make me laugh.
"Folk musicians have called on a government minister to apologise after he described listening to folk singers as his idea of hell.
Junior culture minister Kim Howells's remarks during a parliamentary debate have angered some folk fans who accuse him of insulting traditional English culture.
Mr Howells was taking part in a House of Commons debate on the number of musicians permitted to play together on licensed premises, which is currently restricted to two. "
The petitioning began as far back as 2001, but clearly did not evince enough 'diversity' for this lot of cultural stalinists. Oh, and of course it's another back-door tax.
Don't waste time on their pointless petitions, just vote them out next time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/1694054.stm
NICK S, NORTHAMPTON, ENGLAND
The DCMS figures (if they are to be believed) for the 60% of venues with Premises licensing entertainment permission for live music may lead you to think that all is at least well with these.
This is far from the case - with many restrictions and limits being imposed on where, when and what type of live music is permitted.
But the DCMS and their Live Music Forum - seem to be happy that no live music at all is happening in the remaining 40%.
And many local athorities - if the advice provided to their elected menbers is anything to go by - do not even read the new legislation and are being allowed to use it as they did the previous legislation - to prevent live music or to strangle the life out of it.
When in fact, if their Local Statement of Licensing Policy is shown to have prevented a cultural activity - the Licensing Act 2003 requires this Policy to be revisited.
The music aspects of the Licensing Act 2003 - were always a secondary consideration. And as the resulting mess shows this was a mistake. The whole issue needs to be extricated from what was thought to be the easy option of lumping it in with measures for licensing alcohol and now urgently needs to be dealt with as the separate issue it has always been.
Roger Gall, Portland, Dorset
Guido Brockmann could not be more right.
I am 67, my father, born in 1910, was always so proud of Britain's freedom. He was in the RAF and regarded it as part of his job to defend these freedoms. Having lived through two World Wars, my parents voted for joining the European community with the purpose of preventing more wars
They would be so very disappointed with life as it is now whether the fault lies with the EU or the government alone..
Jan, Tavistock, UK
Why is music any different from a pub quiz?
If it disturbs the neighbourhood then the venue deserves to get its next annual renewal turned down. Otherwise why bother with the paperwork? I can’t believe that the licensing authority makes any money after they’ve had their staffing and other admin costs so there’s no business case. It works perfectly well in Scotland and Ireland where they’re proud of their music tradition.
The Stones played their first gig at the Station Hotel, Richmond for a pound each. The Beatles started in the Casbah Coffee Club in Liverpool.
Ironically this has now been given a Grade 2 listing yet I doubt if either would have ever got going as a music venue with today’s nanny-state attitude.
I’m in a pub-rock band called Redzone and we’re at the Hop Poles in Alton this Saturday. It’s free admission and we get about £30 each out of it. Rehearsal time at the local brownie hut is £15, a packet of strings about a fiver and a pair of valves for a Marshall amplifier about £79 so on a good day we break even.
For the folkies it’s a different matter. The hard working people who run the clubs certainly don’t do it for the money. June Tabor, one of the finest singers in the land, went back to being a librarian for a while after a fine career in the 70s although went back in the 90s as a full time performer being voted folk singer of the year at the BBC2004 Folk Awards.
Just cut out the paperwork and let the market at this very fragile end of the music world get on with its life.
Jeremy Maltby, Alton, Hampshire
I have put my name to acouple of these petitins. One, asking the Prime minister to come clean about the efficacity of speed cameras was dimissed on the findings of an 'independent' research by the National Safety Camera Programme -How unbiased is that then?
Phil Brenchley, Aberdeen, UK
Why is music any different from a pub quiz?
If it disturbs the neighbourhood then the venue deserves to get its next annual renewal turned down. Otherwise why bother with the paperwork? I can’t believe that the licensing authority makes any money after they’ve had their staffing and other admin costs so there’s no business case. It works perfectly well in Scotland and Ireland where they’re proud of their music tradition.
The Stones played their first gig at the Station Hotel, Richmond for a pound each. The Beatles started in the Casbah Coffee Club in Liverpool.
Ironically this has now been given a Grade 2 listing yet I doubt if either would have ever got going as a music venue with today’s nanny-state attitude.
I’m in a pub-rock band called Redzone and we’re at the Hop Poles in Alton this Saturday. It’s free admission and we get about £30 each out of it. Rehearsal time at the local brownie hut is £15, a packet of strings about a fiver and a pair of valves for a Marshall amplifier about £79 so on a good day we break even.
For the folkies it’s a different matter. The hard working people who run the clubs certainly don’t do it for the money. June Tabor, one of the finest singers in the land, went back to being a librarian for a while after a fine career in the 70s although went back in the 90s as a full time performer being voted folk singer of the year at the BBC2004 Folk Awards.
Just cut out the paperwork and let the market at this very fragile end of the music world get on with its life.
Jeremy Maltby, Alton, Hampshire
Just typical of the way this government is intent on destroying the small local pub with their stupid rules on smoking and any socialising other than that provided by their friends in big business.
Some of us like the way we have lived for years with the agreement of our pub landlord and smoking and non-smoking friends. 'New' they may be - Labour they are not!
R.L. Wilkins, Doncaster,
Well said Libby, but "Department for Culture" ? Don't make me laugh:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/1694054.stm
"Folk musicians have called on a government minister to apologise after he described listening to folk singers as his idea of hell.
Junior culture minister Kim Howells's remarks during a parliamentary debate have angered some folk fans who accuse him of insulting traditional English culture.
Mr Howells was taking part in a House of Commons debate on the number of musicians permitted to play together on licensed premises, which is currently restricted to two. "
The petitioning began as far back as 2001, but clearly did not evince enough 'diversity' for this lot of cultural stalinists. Oh, and of course it's another back-door tax.
Don't waste time on their pointless petitions, just vote them out next time.
NICK S, NORTHAMPTON, ENGLAND
Does the british governement not have more pressing issues then fine or IMPRISON some one for singing in a pub ? 20000 poung or six months in prison is ridiculous. This is incrimination of innocent people. What ever happened to the country that gave us the "Magna Charta" ?
When watching the news today, one can not help but think that civil liberties are slowly but steadily being eroded by "Political Correctness" in the UK. But freedom means as well the freedom to think otherwise - away from the mainstream.
I used to think of the UK as a country of personal freedom, freedom which streches back to the Magna Charta. The present policies though are a double flip "forward into the past", where fun is deemed as "uncorrect". Instead of chasing honest citizens wanting to have some fun - why does the UK governement not spend the same amount of energy (or more) in chasing and catching the really bad guys. Rather then putting everyone under general suspicion ?
Guido Brockmann, Hoeilaart, VL-BR
damn right stupid Labour rules New fairly IGNORANCED at the hands of corporation..
Nadim Bakri, Bromley, UK
A bit shaky on the Legal front i'm afraid, you will not e that the Licensing Act 2003!!! governs the provision of live music and dancing (Regulated Entertainment) the only licensing act passed in 2005 is the Gambling Act 2005.
Adam Snow, Crewe, Cheshire
It seems a clever idea on several levels.
With the website as a cheap focus group of disaffection, future legislation can be framed in ways less likely to bug the electorate, now they’ve aired their foibles. Some genuine innovative ideas may emerge, worthy of claiming credit for, after the petition has been forgotten. There’s a useful feedback element, without the expense of pollsters and surveys. Some petitions might even be ‘planted,’ as a kite-flying way of gauging reaction. Possibly damaging fallout from specific cases, such as legal challenge, may be averted, if grievances can seem to be aired, albeit far from the light of day.
Finally, the entertainment aspect, which you have rightly pinpointed, reminds us how unnecessary much regulatory change is, except possibly to relieve the tedium of iterative compliance with the previous regime.
dr venables preller, Warminster, UK
I did not think the article was trite. True, singing in bars is less important than either the privacy implications of vehicle tracking, inheritance tax or the Hunting Act. But so what? There are many issues of far *more* important than any of these things, yet if the Times concentrated on worldwide war, peace and catastrophe to the exclusion of all else it would not be a newspaper but a campaign sheet.
Mr or Ms Saunder's comment also fails to appreciate the way in which large political changes take place as the cumulative sum of small political surrenders. The loss of the simple right to have a sing-song in a bar, while shoving a few quid in the direction of a semi-amateur musician, would have been inconceivable to the World War II generation.
Natalie Solent, Essex,
It seems a clever idea on several levels.
With the website as a cheap focus group of disaffection, future legislation can be framed in ways less likely to bug the electorate, now they’ve aired their foibles. Some genuine innovative ideas may emerge, worthy of claiming credit for, after the petition has been forgotten. There’s a useful feedback element, without the expense of pollsters and surveys. Some petitions might even be ‘planted,’ as a kite-flying way of gauging reaction. Possibly damaging fallout from specific cases, such as legal challenge, may be averted, if grievances can seem to be aired, albeit far from the light of day.
Finally, the entertainment aspect, which you have rightly pinpointed, reminds us how unnecessary much regulatory change is, except possibly to relieve the tedium of iterative compliance with the previous regime.
dr venables preller, Warminster, UK
Thank you for such a useful article - I've only recently become aware of the folk scene, and am interested (and dismayed) to learn of such strange and silent legislation.
I also concur on the subject of morris dancers.
Jennifer Chambers, Bradford,
I do not agree that the article is trite, the issue that was draw attention to relates to curtailing (in most cases)
innocent entertainment, the other issues are much more contentious.
I do agree though that the goverment will ignore all of the petitions, it's just a PR stunt to hide the fact that the populations' opinions, will in reality, be ignored
Frank H., London, England
The first thing Gordon Brown wants to do is to introduce a Law banning snobbery in all its forms. This obscene behaviour is well observed in The Times whose staff, reporters,and Blog sites are infested with this disease,...and generally look down their nose at the peasants below with their patronizing manner and comments.
The one thing that stands out a mile in seedy Britain, is how the Jews via the Board of British Jews went knocking at the door of No10 within 2 weeks of Blair taking office,...they were out cadging a sympathy (again) this time for " holocaust memorial day" Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
No doubt the Jew will be knocking on Browns door cap in hand while we Ethnic white Brits have to stand at the back of the queue.
TrueBrit, Manchester,
Sorry but sad: I'd forgotten about the folkie rules but what is it about this government which is so anti-people?
Clive S , Crowborough,
What a trite article by Ms Purves. So far over 672,000 have requested government to scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy, and 23,000 wish to see the end of inheritance tax. A further 22,500 want to see the hunting act abolished. Not bad for the latter petitioners bearing in mind that the Countryside Alliance has only 100,000 members and many families share computers. Yet Ms Purves can only rattle on about music and the Licensing Act 2005.
Never mind. The top three petitioners, totalling 717,500 know that government will never listen to their pleas. However, pop singer Blair and his boys might consider taking note of the problem with folk music in pubs in their attempt to preserve 'Britishness' their latest headline grabbing initiative.
Nice to know that none of this rubbish affects Scotland. But neither does University top up fees or old folk having to pay for the care in their final years on this earth. But after all, these are subsidised by taxpayers in England and Wales. Good on the Jocks
E Saunders, Richmond, Surrey, England