The following from Hamish Birchall. http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/

Licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe has justified the criminalisation of pub 
pianos, unless licensed, on the grounds that they are only 'theoretically 
innocuous'.

The claim appears in an extraordinary letter sent last month by Sutcliffe to 
Labour MP Roger Berry (Kingswood, south Gloucestershire), responding to a 
constituent's concerns about the Licensing Act and live music.

The minister starts by defending the licensing regime, citing a 7% increase 
in potential venues in 2008.  He does not mention the 5% fall in live venues 
headlined in the DCMS live music survey of 2007.  Nor does he mention that 
the 91,000 venues with a live music permission must be set against the 
millions of places where live music would be illegal.  The Licensing Act 
applies to 'any place', including streets, parks, gardens, hospitals, care 
homes, schools and private homes.

He then repeats the government's current favourite misleading insinuation 
that only licensing can deal with noise nuisance:

'The Live Music Forum chaired by Feargal Sharkey recommended that government 
develop exemptions for small live music events.  However, it proved 
impossible to reach agreement on an exemption which would promote live 
music, but also protect local residents from noise and nuisance.'

He continues:

'Although live music campaigners often talk of the criminalisation of 
theoretically innocuous activities, such as putting a piano in a pub, it 
should be remembered that some premises are very close or even adjacent to 
private residences and even such supposedly harmless activities can cause 
noise nuisance.   The Licensing Act 2003 does not prevent live music taking 
place, but it does ensure that some consideration is given to how local 
residences and businesses might be affected by it.'

This statement is so ludicrous in its implications, so chock full of warped 
ideas, assumptions and misleading insinuations, it is hard to which one to 
tackle first.

What about the harsh treatment of pianos as against jukeboxes and other 
recorded sound systems in bars.  In 2005 the government gave all bars and 
restaurants applying to convert their old alcohol licence automatic 
permission to play recorded music under the new regime.  That also allows 
DJs, provided there is no dancing.

How about the complete lack of data suggesting that live music is a 
significant noise nuisance.  There are far more complaints about neighbours' 
stereos.  They are routinely 'close to or even adjacent to private 
residences'.  The minister's argument logically extends to home stereos.

How about the Environmental Protection Act which councils already use to 
tackle noise nuisance, irrespective of the Licensing Act, and which also 
allows for pre-emptive noise abatement notices.  Or the Clean Neighbourhoods 
and Environment Act which allows for substantial on-the-spot fines for 
licensees of premises that are deemed too noisy between 11pm and 7am.

And how about the Act's exemption for big screen broadcast entertainment, 
not just in bars, but anywhere and anytime.

The list goes on, and on, and on...

ENDS

On 1 Oct, 10:21, "Roger Gall"  wrote:
> The following from Hamish Birchall.http://www.livemusicforum.co.uk/
>
> 'Although live music campaigners often talk of the criminalisation of
> theoretically innocuous activities, such as putting a piano in a pub, it
> should be remembered that some premises are very close or even adjacent to
> private residences

It amazes me that this wonderfully hackneyed cart/horse argument gets
trundled out so often.

The fact that any house is near a pub is, by definition, a factor in
the decision-making process of the person who buys or rents the
property. It is a rare paub that is brand new and built next to
existing houses - there, the occupiers might have a justifiable
argument. But anyone who chooses to live next to a pub has to expect
what they get.

I know of one local pub that does put on music, and has huge trouble
from a neighbour who bought the house next door and now complains
about the noise. His line usually starts with "I paid £400,000 for
this house........." to which the obvious answer is `think yourself
lucky, if it had been anywhere else in the village it would have been
£600,000 and you couldn't afford it'.

banksie wrote:

> I know of one local pub that does put on music, and has huge trouble
> from a neighbour who bought the house next door and now complains
> about the noise. His line usually starts with "I paid £400,000 for
> this house........." to which the obvious answer is `think yourself
> lucky, if it had been anywhere else in the village it would have been
> £600,000 and you couldn't afford it'.

It's still illegal to create a public nuisance, even if you've been 
doing it since the 15th century.

Paul Magnussen

Paul Magnussen wrote:
> banksie wrote:
> 
> 
> It's still illegal to create a public nuisance, even if you've been 
> doing it since the 15th century.
> 
> Paul Magnussen
> 
The Army causes all kinds of nuisance noises around here, up to 2a.m. 
but they've been here longer than we have, and if I went around to 
complain, the "you and whose army" line may apply

Paul Magnussen said:
> banksie wrote:
>
>> I know of one local pub that does put on music, and has huge trouble
>> from a neighbour who bought the house next door and now complains
>> about the noise. His line usually starts with "I paid £400,000 for
>> this house........." to which the obvious answer is `think yourself
>> lucky, if it had been anywhere else in the village it would have been
>> £600,000 and you couldn't afford it'.
>
> It's still illegal to create a public nuisance, even if you've been 
> doing it since the 15th century.

Was karaoke even illegal that long ago ?

-- 
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