Extract from Mike Harding's BBC Radio 2 show 17 July 2002. Published in The 
Rose Of The Ribble Valley by Graham Dixon ISBN 1-84294-100-3.

Dr Kim Howells was then Minister in the DCMS responsible for introducing 
what later became The Licensing Act 2003.

Mike Harding Kim, if I can just go on to some questions we've had sent in 
from listeners, very quickly, because I do realise you've got to get off to 
the house and various other things...Roger Gall has emailed to say, and I 
quote, "When you introduce this new licensing system, if pubs don't have an 
entertainment licence, will sessions and singarounds be banned?"

Dr Kim Howells MP Yes, i suppose they would be. The landlord would need to 
get an entertainment licence to cover himself or herself....

Mike Harding But this is not for gain, is it, you were talking about...

Dr Kim Howells MP Oh, I see, I am sorry, I thought that you meant it would 
be professional musicians being paid ....

Mike Harding No, just sessions and singarounds, people just playing for 
their own fun.

Dr Kim Howells MP No, they certainly wouldn't and I'm very keen that we 
should make sure that that facility is there. There shouldn't be a problem. 
As long as money is not changing hands, then there's no reason why they 
should have to have a licence.

ENDS

At 11:18:08 on Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Roger Gall  
wrote in :

>Extract from Mike Harding's BBC Radio 2 show 17 July 2002. Published in The
>Rose Of The Ribble Valley by Graham Dixon ISBN 1-84294-100-3.

Roger, can you *please* consider keeping all these licensing posts in 
the same thread, by replying to your own posts?  This is an obvious 
follow-on from Message-ID: , 
Subject "Licensing - Remember this?" - so why have you started a new 
thread for it?  It leaves scatter all over the newsgroup, and makes it 
very hard to maintain any sort of coherence in the subject.
-- 
Molly Mockford
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

Molly Mockford wrote:

> Roger, can you *please* consider keeping all these licensing posts in 
> the same thread, by replying to your own posts?

Useless, Molly: Roger Gall is the pseudonym of a preprogrammed software 
module.

Paul Magnussen

At 20:20:52 on Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Paul Magnussen 
 wrote in 
:

>Molly Mockford wrote:
>
>> Roger, can you *please* consider keeping all these licensing posts in 
>>the same thread, by replying to your own posts?
>
>Useless, Molly: Roger Gall is the pseudonym of a preprogrammed software 
>module.

He certainly seems to be in write-only, read-nothing mode.  Why would 
anybody post, let alone so much, if they are not going to bother looking 
at, let alone responding to, the replies?  I don't care for people 
driving up and down my street in a loudspeaker car, even if I have 
sympathy for what they are bellowing about.  I feel my killfile 
approaching.
-- 
Molly Mockford
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

"Molly Mockford"  wrote in message 
news:txs33JE2cQhKFwdc@molly.mockford...
> At 20:20:52 on Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Paul Magnussen  
> wrote in :
>
>>Molly Mockford wrote:
>>
>>> Roger, can you *please* consider keeping all these licensing posts in 
>>> the same thread, by replying to your own posts?
>>
>>Useless, Molly: Roger Gall is the pseudonym of a preprogrammed software 
>>module.
>
> He certainly seems to be in write-only, read-nothing mode.  Why would 
> anybody post, let alone so much, if they are not going to bother looking 
> at, let alone responding to, the replies?  I don't care for people driving 
> up and down my street in a loudspeaker car, even if I have sympathy for 
> what they are bellowing about.  I feel my killfile approaching.
> -- 
Well he does seem to be posting from a normal, non-spamtrapped, btinternet 
address. Why don't you try emailing him?

ally

Molly Mockford wrote:
> At 20:20:52 on Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Paul Magnussen 
>  wrote in 
> :
> 
>> Molly Mockford wrote:
>>
>>> Roger, can you *please* consider keeping all these licensing posts in 
>>> the same thread, by replying to your own posts?
>>
>>
>> Useless, Molly: Roger Gall is the pseudonym of a preprogrammed 
>> software module.
> 
> 
> He certainly seems to be in write-only, read-nothing mode.  Why would 
> anybody post, let alone so much, if they are not going to bother looking 
> at, let alone responding to, the replies?  I don't care for people 
> driving up and down my street in a loudspeaker car, even if I have 
> sympathy for what they are bellowing about.  I feel my killfile 
> approaching.

What exactly are you complaining about? is it that the information he 
gives may be false (no one has objected along those lines), or is it 
simply that its too untidy for you?

Peter

Paul Magnussen wrote:
> Molly Mockford wrote:
> 
>> Roger, can you *please* consider keeping all these licensing posts in 
>> the same thread, by replying to your own posts?
> 
> Useless, Molly: Roger Gall is the pseudonym of a preprogrammed software 
> module.

More likely we're just another address on a long e-mail distribution list.

As BT Internet email addresses are notorious for attracting vast amounts 
of spam I doubt the address is looked at more than once a week,  if at all.

-- 
William Black

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing.
If you can fake that, you've got it made.

At 09:14:03 on Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Peter J Seymour 
 wrote in 
<e19hm.297575$875.62134@newsfe20.ams2>:

>What exactly are you complaining about? is it that the information he 
>gives may be false (no one has objected along those lines), or is it 
>simply that its too untidy for you?

Yes, I am complaining that the posts - which are all closely related in 
their subject matter - are scattered all over the forum as though they 
had been fired from a Gatling gun, rather than being kept together in 
one particular thread.  As I have already specified, if the posts are 
kept together then those who are interested can easily re-find a 
particular one they want to refer back to;  and those who aren't 
interested can simply ignore that one thread.

I am also complaining that Roger appears not to be bothering to read any 
of the replies to his posts, which rather goes against the general ethos 
of discussion.  This is not an announce-only group.  (And other types of 
announcements are required to prefix the Subject line with "ANNOUNCE: ")

Now, imagine that I had said the above in three or four different posts, 
each one in a brand-new topic, posted at different times;  would that 
not have been far more difficult to make sense of (as well as far more 
discourteous to those whom I expect to read it) than keeping them all 
together neatly in this one reply to your post?
-- 
Molly Mockford
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:48:17 +0100, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>I am also complaining that Roger appears not to be bothering to read any 
>of the replies to his posts, which rather goes against the general ethos 
>of discussion. 


I wish he would.  I play in a fee-earning band and also in non
fee-earning sessions.  I've not noticed this law making any
difference.

Anyone else?
-- 
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Put thecat out to email

Geoff Berrow said:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:48:17 +0100, Molly Mockford
> wrote:
>
>>I am also complaining that Roger appears not to be bothering to read any 
>>of the replies to his posts, which rather goes against the general ethos 
>>of discussion. 
>
> I wish he would.  I play in a fee-earning band and also in non
> fee-earning sessions.  I've not noticed this law making any
> difference.
>
> Anyone else?

I remember this being raised before, when he started doing it. I don't
remember much indication that he took note of anything anyone here said
then, either. I regard his posts as approaching spam. Worthy, possibly,
arguably, but still dumped on us from on high with no involvement.


-- 
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://www.qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html