The Government has rejected all three recommendations affecting music made in 
the Culture,
Media and Sport Select Committee¹s report on the Licensing Act 2003.  The 
report¹s main
recommendations in terms of music were to scrap form 696, to introduce an 
exemption for venues of
a capacity of below 200 and to reintroduce the two in a bar rule.

-- 
 
<http://www.adrianlegg.com/>
<http://www.facebook.com/adrianlegg>

Adrian Legg wrote:

> The Government has rejected all three recommendations affecting music made
> in the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee¹s report on the Licensing
> Act 2003.  The report¹s main recommendations in terms of music were to
> scrap form 696, to introduce an exemption for venues of a capacity of
> below 200 and to reintroduce the two in a bar rule.

It's a shame that the first and third were not implemented.

As for the middle one, most pubs would automatically have a capacity of less 
than two hundred, and it is in such venues that there is great scope for 
conflict with local residential neighbours.

"Adrian Legg"  wrote in message 
news:9MidnSSvNoE86PjXnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> The Government has rejected all three recommendations affecting music made 
> in
> the Culture,
> Media and Sport Select Committee¹s report on the Licensing Act 2003.  The
> report¹s main
> recommendations in terms of music were to scrap form 696, to introduce an
> exemption for venues of
> a capacity of below 200 and to reintroduce the two in a bar rule.

Where has this been reported?
I can't find a link to this story anywhere.

George

"George Weston"  wrote in message 
news:7cmdhaF26svikU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Adrian Legg"  wrote in message 
> news:9MidnSSvNoE86PjXnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> The Government has rejected all three recommendations affecting music 
>> made in
>> the Culture,
>> Media and Sport Select Committee¹s report on the Licensing Act 2003.  The
>> report¹s main
>> recommendations in terms of music were to scrap form 696, to introduce an
>> exemption for venues of
>> a capacity of below 200 and to reintroduce the two in a bar rule.
>
> Where has this been reported?
> I can't find a link to this story anywhere.
>
Try here.....

http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/25075/sharkey-criticises-governments-decision-on

"George Weston"  wrote in message 
news:7cmdhaF26svikU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Adrian Legg"  wrote in message 
> news:9MidnSSvNoE86PjXnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> The Government has rejected all three recommendations affecting music 
>> made in
>> the Culture,
>> Media and Sport Select Committee¹s report on the Licensing Act 2003.  The
>> report¹s main
>> recommendations in terms of music were to scrap form 696, to introduce an
>> exemption for venues of
>> a capacity of below 200 and to reintroduce the two in a bar rule.
>
> Where has this been reported?
> I can't find a link to this story anywhere.

The report is here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcumeds/492/49212.htm

Recommendation 18 reads:
"We recommend that the Government should exempt venues with a capacity of 
200 persons or fewer from the need to obtain a licence for the performance 
of live music. We further recommend the reintroduction of the "two-in-a-bar" 
exemption enabling venues of any size to put on a performance of 
non-amplified music by one or two musicians without the need for a licence. 
We believe that these two exemptions would encourage the performance of live 
music without impacting negatively on any of the four licensing objectives 
under the Act."

I can see why this failed.  Even if the audience is limited to 200 people 
the authorities would think there is potential for very loud music, and with 
no limit on the numbes for a two-in-a-bar they would have visions of 
unlicensed hippy festivals with thousands listening to unampliifed duos.

It would have been better to start with the two-in-a-bar rule for 
unamplified music in venues holding 200 or less and go from there.

"Adrian Legg"  wrote in message 
news:9MidnSSvNoE86PjXnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> The Government has rejected all three recommendations affecting music made 
> in
> the Culture,
> Media and Sport Select Committee¹s report on the Licensing Act 2003.  The
> report¹s main
> recommendations in terms of music were to scrap form 696, to introduce an
> exemption for venues of
> a capacity of below 200 and to reintroduce the two in a bar rule.
>
> -- 
>
> <http://www.adrianlegg.com/>
> <http://www.facebook.com/adrianlegg>
>
The piece below sums up the crass stupidity inherent in Noo Laber.
I seem to remember trying to drum up support here to fight this bill
and got told basically to sod off as 'it is a good thing' for live music.
Well it ain't.

Terence Blacker of the Independent has written the best article yet on 
recent entertainment licensing developments:

'Where are the guitar riots and accordian assaults? Terence Blacker - The 
Independent - Tuesday 21 July 2009
'This Government has developed a bizarre hatred for a certain kind of live 
music. Chilling with the kids at the Latitude Festival this weekend, the 
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Ben Bradshaw, looked 
extraordinarily relaxed for someone whose ministry had just dealt a hammer 
blow to musical expression in the UK. Participating in a packed debate about 
media, Bradshaw had been amiable, almost liberal, in his views about Page 
Three girls and the celebrity culture.
'It is music for which his Government has developed a bizarre, sustained 
hatred - or, to be more accurate, a certain kind of music. There is no 
problem with the big, moneyed, well-sponsored acts of the type performing on 
the main stages of Latitude and other festivals. It is the kind of acts 
found on the fringes of these events - small, scruffy, dangerously 
individual and spontaneous - which seems to frighten ministers, and has 
caused them to dump yet another mess of pointless legislation on to the 
statute books.
'Six years ago, the Blair Government decided, for reasons which were and 
remain mysterious, that live music - that is, any music, acoustic or 
amplified, played by one musician or more in a public place - causes a 
threat to public order. It passed the Licensing Act, which required pubs or 
clubs to fill out a complicated form and pay for a permit from the local 
council.
'There would be no exceptions. A person playing a ukulele accompanied by 
someone else on a triangle would be breaking the law if the act appeared in 
a pub without the required license. There was no control, on the other hand, 
over noise blaring from a large TV screen or from recorded music.
'This bafflingly silly piece of legislation, which punished musicians and 
publicans, two professions that were already in difficulty, had the effect 
of causing many pubs to abandon live music. After a long campaign, headed by 
the charity UK Music, sanity seemed to have broken through in May when a 
Commons Select Committee looking into the act concluded that music should 
not automatically be considered a disruptive activity. The 'draconian' law 
had discouraged performance, 'especially by young musicians'.
'The Government has just rejected the committee's recommendations. Ben 
Bradshaw has decreed that, when it comes to music's potential for stirring 
violence, the number of musicians or the size of audience is irrelevant. 
Clearly bored by the subject, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport has 
said that the subject is now closed.
'Could someone in government, in the ministry, in the police, explain the 
thinking behind this idiocy? Surely even the most blinkered, 
legislation-addicted minister can see that it is not music which causes 
trouble when people are gathered together, but alcohol. It is asinine to 
blame musicians for what is a general social problem.
'There has been extraordinarily little evidence to back up the Government's 
position - no sobering statistics about guitar riots, or chilling accounts 
of accordion-related violence. Feebly, a civil servant has argued that, in 
spite of the Licensing Act, the venues putting on live music in the UK have 
increased since 2007.
'Of course they have. Surely, the news has reached Whitehall by now that 
Britain is going through a musical renaissance. There has been a huge 
increase in the numbers of those who attend concerts and festivals. In an 
age of control and corporatism, when so much of life and work is mediated 
through screens, performed music is a defiant, and increasingly powerful, 
expression of the individual human spirit.
'Could that, just possibly, be the problem? Is the reason why politicians 
fear the kind of music which is not controlled by sponsors or huge marketing 
interests that it represents freedom? A government which likes to boast of 
the country's "creative industries" is one which deals with life as if it 
were part of a big business. Everything must be licensed, controlled.
'There is a sad irony here for those who have voted Labour down the years. 
The last time there was an explosion of song-writing outside the power of 
record companies was some 45 years ago. At that time, a Labour government 
briefly had the courage to embrace musical performance as part of a young 
and changing Britain.
'Today, those in charge are wary of unlicensed spontaneity. This absurd 
campaign against musicians, particularly young musicians, may not be the 
most grievous act of this Government but it represents a spirit of 
petty-mindedness and fear which will cost it dearly over the next 12 
months.'

"Nildram"  wrote in message 
news:ucmdnfjIItSrN_TXnZ2dnUVZ8iydnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "Adrian Legg"  wrote in message 
> news:9MidnSSvNoE86PjXnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> The Government has rejected all three recommendations affecting music 
>> made in
>> the Culture,
>> Media and Sport Select Committee¹s report on the Licensing Act 2003.  The
>> report¹s main
>> recommendations in terms of music were to scrap form 696, to introduce an
>> exemption for venues of
>> a capacity of below 200 and to reintroduce the two in a bar rule.
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> <http://www.adrianlegg.com/>
>> <http://www.facebook.com/adrianlegg>
>>
> The piece below sums up the crass stupidity inherent in Noo Laber.
> I seem to remember trying to drum up support here to fight this bill
> and got told basically to sod off as 'it is a good thing' for live music.
> Well it ain't.
>
> Terence Blacker of the Independent has written the best article yet on 
> recent entertainment licensing developments:
>
> 'Where are the guitar riots and accordian assaults? Terence Blacker - The 
> Independent - Tuesday 21 July 2009
> 'This Government has developed a bizarre hatred for a certain kind of live 
> music. Chilling with the kids at the Latitude Festival this weekend, the 
> Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Ben Bradshaw, looked 
> extraordinarily relaxed for someone whose ministry had just dealt a hammer 
> blow to musical expression in the UK. Participating in a packed debate 
> about media, Bradshaw had been amiable, almost liberal, in his views about 
> Page Three girls and the celebrity culture.
> 'It is music for which his Government has developed a bizarre, sustained 
> hatred - or, to be more accurate, a certain kind of music. There is no 
> problem with the big, moneyed, well-sponsored acts of the type performing 
> on the main stages of Latitude and other festivals. It is the kind of acts 
> found on the fringes of these events - small, scruffy, dangerously 
> individual and spontaneous - which seems to frighten ministers, and has 
> caused them to dump yet another mess of pointless legislation on to the 
> statute books.
> 'Six years ago, the Blair Government decided, for reasons which were and 
> remain mysterious, that live music - that is, any music, acoustic or 
> amplified, played by one musician or more in a public place - causes a 
> threat to public order. It passed the Licensing Act, which required pubs 
> or clubs to fill out a complicated form and pay for a permit from the 
> local council.

Not strictly true.

All public premises (pubs, clubs, village halls etc.) had to apply for a new 
Premises Licence on inception of the new Act.

The new licence had only to be applied for once, as opposed to needing to be 
renewed annually, which saved licensees money.

The new all-in-one licence could include sale of alcohol, live music, 
recorded music, singing, dancing, theatrical performances, whatever, and 
would replace their old Magistrates' Court Alcohol Licence and/or their 
Public Entertainments Licence (if they had one). Prior to the new Act, there 
was an anomaly whereby one or two musicians could play without the licensee 
needing to have a Public Entertainments Licence. This exception ended on the 
inception of the new Act.

However, some licensees (for whatever reason - see below) made the decision 
not to tick the "live music" box when they applied for their new Premises 
Licence.
It is only in premises such as these where one or two people are now barred 
from performing.

Possible reasons for licensees not ticking the "live music" box on the 
application form:
1. They had already received complaints from neighbours about noise and 
thought that they might be refused a licence.
2. They knew their premises would be inspected and didn't want to be refused 
a new licence because (say) they knew they had unsafe electrical wiring, 
indaequate fire exits, extinguishers, etc.

I have first-hand knowledge of how this happened, as amongst other things, 
I'm secretary of our local village hall committee and was/still am the 
licensee.
We passed the inspection with no problems and now reguarly put on discos, 
dances, theatre performances - and yes, bands (of any size).

Contrarily, the ex-landlord of the pub in next village told me that he 
didn't tick the live music box as he thought he might have to spend money on 
upgrading his pub to meet current safety standards! Thus, his occassional 
two-in-a-bar bands could no longer play there.
Since the pub changed hands, the present licensee applied for - and was 
granted - a full music licence, and didn't after all need to do any 
upgrades. The place is now thriving, with regular band performances and an 
open-mic night every Monday.



> 'There would be no exceptions. A person playing a ukulele accompanied by 
> someone else on a triangle would be breaking the law if the act appeared 
> in a pub without the required license. There was no control, on the other 
> hand, over noise blaring from a large TV screen or from recorded music.
> 'This bafflingly silly piece of legislation, which punished musicians and 
> publicans, two professions that were already in difficulty, had the effect 
> of causing many pubs to abandon live music. After a long campaign, headed 
> by the charity UK Music, sanity seemed to have broken through in May when 
> a Commons Select Committee looking into the act concluded that music 
> should not automatically be considered a disruptive activity. The 
> 'draconian' law had discouraged performance, 'especially by young 
> musicians'.
> 'The Government has just rejected the committee's recommendations. Ben 
> Bradshaw has decreed that, when it comes to music's potential for stirring 
> violence, the number of musicians or the size of audience is irrelevant. 
> Clearly bored by the subject, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport 
> has said that the subject is now closed.
> 'Could someone in government, in the ministry, in the police, explain the 
> thinking behind this idiocy? Surely even the most blinkered, 
> legislation-addicted minister can see that it is not music which causes 
> trouble when people are gathered together, but alcohol. It is asinine to 
> blame musicians for what is a general social problem.
> 'There has been extraordinarily little evidence to back up the 
> Government's position - no sobering statistics about guitar riots, or 
> chilling accounts of accordion-related violence. Feebly, a civil servant 
> has argued that, in spite of the Licensing Act, the venues putting on live 
> music in the UK have increased since 2007.
> 'Of course they have. Surely, the news has reached Whitehall by now that 
> Britain is going through a musical renaissance. There has been a huge 
> increase in the numbers of those who attend concerts and festivals. In an 
> age of control and corporatism, when so much of life and work is mediated 
> through screens, performed music is a defiant, and increasingly powerful, 
> expression of the individual human spirit.
> 'Could that, just possibly, be the problem? Is the reason why politicians 
> fear the kind of music which is not controlled by sponsors or huge 
> marketing interests that it represents freedom? A government which likes 
> to boast of the country's "creative industries" is one which deals with 
> life as if it were part of a big business. Everything must be licensed, 
> controlled.
> 'There is a sad irony here for those who have voted Labour down the years. 
> The last time there was an explosion of song-writing outside the power of 
> record companies was some 45 years ago. At that time, a Labour government 
> briefly had the courage to embrace musical performance as part of a young 
> and changing Britain.
> 'Today, those in charge are wary of unlicensed spontaneity. This absurd 
> campaign against musicians, particularly young musicians, may not be the 
> most grievous act of this Government but it represents a spirit of 
> petty-mindedness and fear which will cost it dearly over the next 12 
> months.'

In all of this tirade, which is highly emotional and makes many assumptions, 
the author failed to mention the Met Police's Form 696, which, to my mind, 
*does* need to be scrapped.
For Londoners and those living in areas where their local police and council 
have adopted it, licensees have to answer searching questions about each 
gig, the band, the likely audience, etc, which in many cases might be ruled 
as racist. Thankfully, our local police and council haven't (yet) adopted 
this measure.

George

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:15:24 +0100, "George Weston"
 wrote:

>
>"Nildram"  wrote in message 
>news:ucmdnfjIItSrN_TXnZ2dnUVZ8iydnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>
>> "Adrian Legg"  wrote in message 
>> news:9MidnSSvNoE86PjXnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> The Government has rejected all three recommendations affecting music 
>>> made in
>>> the Culture,
>>> Media and Sport Select Committee¹s report on the Licensing Act 2003.  The
>>> report¹s main
>>> recommendations in terms of music were to scrap form 696, to introduce an
>>> exemption for venues of
>>> a capacity of below 200 and to reintroduce the two in a bar rule.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> <http://www.adrianlegg.com/>
>>> <http://www.facebook.com/adrianlegg>
>>>
>> The piece below sums up the crass stupidity inherent in Noo Laber.
>> I seem to remember trying to drum up support here to fight this bill
>> and got told basically to sod off as 'it is a good thing' for live music.
>> Well it ain't.
>>
>> Terence Blacker of the Independent has written the best article yet on 
>> recent entertainment licensing developments:
>>
>> 'Where are the guitar riots and accordian assaults? Terence Blacker - The 
>> Independent - Tuesday 21 July 2009
>> 'This Government has developed a bizarre hatred for a certain kind of live 
>> music. Chilling with the kids at the Latitude Festival this weekend, the 
>> Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Ben Bradshaw, looked 
>> extraordinarily relaxed for someone whose ministry had just dealt a hammer 
>> blow to musical expression in the UK. Participating in a packed debate 
>> about media, Bradshaw had been amiable, almost liberal, in his views about 
>> Page Three girls and the celebrity culture.
>> 'It is music for which his Government has developed a bizarre, sustained 
>> hatred - or, to be more accurate, a certain kind of music. There is no 
>> problem with the big, moneyed, well-sponsored acts of the type performing 
>> on the main stages of Latitude and other festivals. It is the kind of acts 
>> found on the fringes of these events - small, scruffy, dangerously 
>> individual and spontaneous - which seems to frighten ministers, and has 
>> caused them to dump yet another mess of pointless legislation on to the 
>> statute books.
>> 'Six years ago, the Blair Government decided, for reasons which were and 
>> remain mysterious, that live music - that is, any music, acoustic or 
>> amplified, played by one musician or more in a public place - causes a 
>> threat to public order. It passed the Licensing Act, which required pubs 
>> or clubs to fill out a complicated form and pay for a permit from the 
>> local council.
>
>Not strictly true.
>
>All public premises (pubs, clubs, village halls etc.) had to apply for a new 
>Premises Licence on inception of the new Act.
>
>The new licence had only to be applied for once, as opposed to needing to be 
>renewed annually, which saved licensees money.
>
>The new all-in-one licence could include sale of alcohol, live music, 
>recorded music, singing, dancing, theatrical performances, whatever, and 
>would replace their old Magistrates' Court Alcohol Licence and/or their 
>Public Entertainments Licence (if they had one). Prior to the new Act, there 
>was an anomaly whereby one or two musicians could play without the licensee 
>needing to have a Public Entertainments Licence. This exception ended on the 
>inception of the new Act.
>
>However, some licensees (for whatever reason - see below) made the decision 
>not to tick the "live music" box when they applied for their new Premises 
>Licence.
>It is only in premises such as these where one or two people are now barred 
>from performing.
>
>Possible reasons for licensees not ticking the "live music" box on the 
>application form:
>1. They had already received complaints from neighbours about noise and 
>thought that they might be refused a licence.
>2. They knew their premises would be inspected and didn't want to be refused 
>a new licence because (say) they knew they had unsafe electrical wiring, 
>indaequate fire exits, extinguishers, etc.
>
>I have first-hand knowledge of how this happened, as amongst other things, 
>I'm secretary of our local village hall committee and was/still am the 
>licensee.
>We passed the inspection with no problems and now reguarly put on discos, 
>dances, theatre performances - and yes, bands (of any size).
>
>Contrarily, the ex-landlord of the pub in next village told me that he 
>didn't tick the live music box as he thought he might have to spend money on 
>upgrading his pub to meet current safety standards! Thus, his occassional 
>two-in-a-bar bands could no longer play there.
>Since the pub changed hands, the present licensee applied for - and was 
>granted - a full music licence, and didn't after all need to do any 
>upgrades. The place is now thriving, with regular band performances and an 
>open-mic night every Monday.
>
>
>
>> 'There would be no exceptions. A person playing a ukulele accompanied by 
>> someone else on a triangle would be breaking the law if the act appeared 
>> in a pub without the required license. There was no control, on the other 
>> hand, over noise blaring from a large TV screen or from recorded music.
>> 'This bafflingly silly piece of legislation, which punished musicians and 
>> publicans, two professions that were already in difficulty, had the effect 
>> of causing many pubs to abandon live music. After a long campaign, headed 
>> by the charity UK Music, sanity seemed to have broken through in May when 
>> a Commons Select Committee looking into the act concluded that music 
>> should not automatically be considered a disruptive activity. The 
>> 'draconian' law had discouraged performance, 'especially by young 
>> musicians'.
>> 'The Government has just rejected the committee's recommendations. Ben 
>> Bradshaw has decreed that, when it comes to music's potential for stirring 
>> violence, the number of musicians or the size of audience is irrelevant. 
>> Clearly bored by the subject, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport 
>> has said that the subject is now closed.
>> 'Could someone in government, in the ministry, in the police, explain the 
>> thinking behind this idiocy? Surely even the most blinkered, 
>> legislation-addicted minister can see that it is not music which causes 
>> trouble when people are gathered together, but alcohol. It is asinine to 
>> blame musicians for what is a general social problem.
>> 'There has been extraordinarily little evidence to back up the 
>> Government's position - no sobering statistics about guitar riots, or 
>> chilling accounts of accordion-related violence. Feebly, a civil servant 
>> has argued that, in spite of the Licensing Act, the venues putting on live 
>> music in the UK have increased since 2007.
>> 'Of course they have. Surely, the news has reached Whitehall by now that 
>> Britain is going through a musical renaissance. There has been a huge 
>> increase in the numbers of those who attend concerts and festivals. In an 
>> age of control and corporatism, when so much of life and work is mediated 
>> through screens, performed music is a defiant, and increasingly powerful, 
>> expression of the individual human spirit.
>> 'Could that, just possibly, be the problem? Is the reason why politicians 
>> fear the kind of music which is not controlled by sponsors or huge 
>> marketing interests that it represents freedom? A government which likes 
>> to boast of the country's "creative industries" is one which deals with 
>> life as if it were part of a big business. Everything must be licensed, 
>> controlled.
>> 'There is a sad irony here for those who have voted Labour down the years. 
>> The last time there was an explosion of song-writing outside the power of 
>> record companies was some 45 years ago. At that time, a Labour government 
>> briefly had the courage to embrace musical performance as part of a young 
>> and changing Britain.
>> 'Today, those in charge are wary of unlicensed spontaneity. This absurd 
>> campaign against musicians, particularly young musicians, may not be the 
>> most grievous act of this Government but it represents a spirit of 
>> petty-mindedness and fear which will cost it dearly over the next 12 
>> months.'
>
>In all of this tirade, which is highly emotional and makes many assumptions, 
>the author failed to mention the Met Police's Form 696, which, to my mind, 
>*does* need to be scrapped.
>For Londoners and those living in areas where their local police and council 
>have adopted it, licensees have to answer searching questions about each 
>gig, the band, the likely audience, etc, which in many cases might be ruled 
>as racist. Thankfully, our local police and council haven't (yet) adopted 
>this measure.
>
>George 
>

I've been there and got the T-shirt. What put me off when I was
running a pub was not so much the legislation (I knew we'd pass all
the health and safety stuff - three fire exits etc) as the appalling
cost of PRS registration. They hit me for £500 just for having a TV
and a juke box. A full performance fee would have been ten times that.

We just ignored the lot and put on whoever we thought would bring the
punters in, and jolly good fun it was too...:-)

Pete (you can't legislate against anarchy!)

"George Weston"  wrote in message 
news:7ctu02F290oteU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Nildram"  wrote in message 
> news:ucmdnfjIItSrN_TXnZ2dnUVZ8iydnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>
>> "Adrian Legg"  wrote in message 
>> news:9MidnSSvNoE86PjXnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> The Government has rejected all three recommendations affecting music 
>>> made in
>>> the Culture,
>>> Media and Sport Select Committee¹s report on the Licensing Act 2003. 
>>> The
>>> report¹s main
>>> recommendations in terms of music were to scrap form 696, to introduce 
>>> an
>>> exemption for venues of
>>> a capacity of below 200 and to reintroduce the two in a bar rule.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> <http://www.adrianlegg.com/>
>>> <http://www.facebook.com/adrianlegg>
>>>
>> The piece below sums up the crass stupidity inherent in Noo Laber.
>> I seem to remember trying to drum up support here to fight this bill
>> and got told basically to sod off as 'it is a good thing' for live music.
>> Well it ain't.
>>
>> Terence Blacker of the Independent has written the best article yet on 
>> recent entertainment licensing developments:
>>
>> 'Where are the guitar riots and accordian assaults? Terence Blacker - The 
>> Independent - Tuesday 21 July 2009
>> 'This Government has developed a bizarre hatred for a certain kind of 
>> live music. Chilling with the kids at the Latitude Festival this weekend, 
>> the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Ben Bradshaw, looked 
>> extraordinarily relaxed for someone whose ministry had just dealt a 
>> hammer blow to musical expression in the UK. Participating in a packed 
>> debate about media, Bradshaw had been amiable, almost liberal, in his 
>> views about Page Three girls and the celebrity culture.
>> 'It is music for which his Government has developed a bizarre, sustained 
>> hatred - or, to be more accurate, a certain kind of music. There is no 
>> problem with the big, moneyed, well-sponsored acts of the type performing 
>> on the main stages of Latitude and other festivals. It is the kind of 
>> acts found on the fringes of these events - small, scruffy, dangerously 
>> individual and spontaneous - which seems to frighten ministers, and has 
>> caused them to dump yet another mess of pointless legislation on to the 
>> statute books.
>> 'Six years ago, the Blair Government decided, for reasons which were and 
>> remain mysterious, that live music - that is, any music, acoustic or 
>> amplified, played by one musician or more in a public place - causes a 
>> threat to public order. It passed the Licensing Act, which required pubs 
>> or clubs to fill out a complicated form and pay for a permit from the 
>> local council.
>
> Not strictly true.
>
> All public premises (pubs, clubs, village halls etc.) had to apply for a 
> new Premises Licence on inception of the new Act.
>
> The new licence had only to be applied for once, as opposed to needing to 
> be renewed annually, which saved licensees money.
>
> The new all-in-one licence could include sale of alcohol, live music, 
> recorded music, singing, dancing, theatrical performances, whatever, and 
> would replace their old Magistrates' Court Alcohol Licence and/or their 
> Public Entertainments Licence (if they had one). Prior to the new Act, 
> there was an anomaly whereby one or two musicians could play without the 
> licensee needing to have a Public Entertainments Licence. This exception 
> ended on the inception of the new Act.
>
> However, some licensees (for whatever reason - see below) made the 
> decision not to tick the "live music" box when they applied for their new 
> Premises Licence.
> It is only in premises such as these where one or two people are now 
> barred from performing.
>
> Possible reasons for licensees not ticking the "live music" box on the 
> application form:
> 1. They had already received complaints from neighbours about noise and 
> thought that they might be refused a licence.
> 2. They knew their premises would be inspected and didn't want to be 
> refused a new licence because (say) they knew they had unsafe electrical 
> wiring, indaequate fire exits, extinguishers, etc.
>
> I have first-hand knowledge of how this happened, as amongst other things, 
> I'm secretary of our local village hall committee and was/still am the 
> licensee.
> We passed the inspection with no problems and now reguarly put on discos, 
> dances, theatre performances - and yes, bands (of any size).
>
> Contrarily, the ex-landlord of the pub in next village told me that he 
> didn't tick the live music box as he thought he might have to spend money 
> on upgrading his pub to meet current safety standards! Thus, his 
> occassional two-in-a-bar bands could no longer play there.
> Since the pub changed hands, the present licensee applied for - and was 
> granted - a full music licence, and didn't after all need to do any 
> upgrades. The place is now thriving, with regular band performances and an 
> open-mic night every Monday.
>
>
>
>> 'There would be no exceptions. A person playing a ukulele accompanied by 
>> someone else on a triangle would be breaking the law if the act appeared 
>> in a pub without the required license. There was no control, on the other 
>> hand, over noise blaring from a large TV screen or from recorded music.
>> 'This bafflingly silly piece of legislation, which punished musicians and 
>> publicans, two professions that were already in difficulty, had the 
>> effect of causing many pubs to abandon live music. After a long campaign, 
>> headed by the charity UK Music, sanity seemed to have broken through in 
>> May when a Commons Select Committee looking into the act concluded that 
>> music should not automatically be considered a disruptive activity. The 
>> 'draconian' law had discouraged performance, 'especially by young 
>> musicians'.
>> 'The Government has just rejected the committee's recommendations. Ben 
>> Bradshaw has decreed that, when it comes to music's potential for 
>> stirring violence, the number of musicians or the size of audience is 
>> irrelevant. Clearly bored by the subject, the Department of Culture, 
>> Media and Sport has said that the subject is now closed.
>> 'Could someone in government, in the ministry, in the police, explain the 
>> thinking behind this idiocy? Surely even the most blinkered, 
>> legislation-addicted minister can see that it is not music which causes 
>> trouble when people are gathered together, but alcohol. It is asinine to 
>> blame musicians for what is a general social problem.
>> 'There has been extraordinarily little evidence to back up the 
>> Government's position - no sobering statistics about guitar riots, or 
>> chilling accounts of accordion-related violence. Feebly, a civil servant 
>> has argued that, in spite of the Licensing Act, the venues putting on 
>> live music in the UK have increased since 2007.
>> 'Of course they have. Surely, the news has reached Whitehall by now that 
>> Britain is going through a musical renaissance. There has been a huge 
>> increase in the numbers of those who attend concerts and festivals. In an 
>> age of control and corporatism, when so much of life and work is mediated 
>> through screens, performed music is a defiant, and increasingly powerful, 
>> expression of the individual human spirit.
>> 'Could that, just possibly, be the problem? Is the reason why politicians 
>> fear the kind of music which is not controlled by sponsors or huge 
>> marketing interests that it represents freedom? A government which likes 
>> to boast of the country's "creative industries" is one which deals with 
>> life as if it were part of a big business. Everything must be licensed, 
>> controlled.
>> 'There is a sad irony here for those who have voted Labour down the 
>> years. The last time there was an explosion of song-writing outside the 
>> power of record companies was some 45 years ago. At that time, a Labour 
>> government briefly had the courage to embrace musical performance as part 
>> of a young and changing Britain.
>> 'Today, those in charge are wary of unlicensed spontaneity. This absurd 
>> campaign against musicians, particularly young musicians, may not be the 
>> most grievous act of this Government but it represents a spirit of 
>> petty-mindedness and fear which will cost it dearly over the next 12 
>> months.'
>
> In all of this tirade, which is highly emotional and makes many 
> assumptions, the author failed to mention the Met Police's Form 696, 
> which, to my mind, *does* need to be scrapped.
> For Londoners and those living in areas where their local police and 
> council have adopted it, licensees have to answer searching questions 
> about each gig, the band, the likely audience, etc, which in many cases 
> might be ruled as racist. Thankfully, our local police and council haven't 
> (yet) adopted this measure.
>
> George

If this wonderful legislation is so good why is so much
time and effort being spent on trying to undo at least
some of the damage it's done?
As ever this bunch of control freaks are refusing to accept
they got it wrong.

Whether the hoops one is required to jump through
to get a license are real or perceived the fact remains
that so many venues did not apply for the music license
previously not required (2 in a bar venues in many cases)
that live music has been badly hit....that is without doubt.
That assessment of the situation is essentially correct.
Bad and totally unnecessary legislation that has
killed many small live music venues yet encourages
excessive drinking.
Brilliant.
-C-

"fourstring"  wrote in message 
news:3Nlam.6229$Tk2.5799@newsfe21.ams2...
>
> "George Weston"  wrote in message 
> news:7ctu02F290oteU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Nildram"  wrote in message 
>> news:ucmdnfjIItSrN_TXnZ2dnUVZ8iydnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>>
>>> "Adrian Legg"  wrote in message 
>>> news:9MidnSSvNoE86PjXnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> The Government has rejected all three recommendations affecting music 
>>>> made in
>>>> the Culture,
>>>> Media and Sport Select Committee¹s report on the Licensing Act 2003. 
>>>> The
>>>> report¹s main
>>>> recommendations in terms of music were to scrap form 696, to introduce 
>>>> an
>>>> exemption for venues of
>>>> a capacity of below 200 and to reintroduce the two in a bar rule.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.adrianlegg.com/>
>>>> <http://www.facebook.com/adrianlegg>
>>>>
>>> The piece below sums up the crass stupidity inherent in Noo Laber.
>>> I seem to remember trying to drum up support here to fight this bill
>>> and got told basically to sod off as 'it is a good thing' for live 
>>> music.
>>> Well it ain't.
>>>
>>> Terence Blacker of the Independent has written the best article yet on 
>>> recent entertainment licensing developments:
>>>
>>> 'Where are the guitar riots and accordian assaults? Terence Blacker - 
>>> The Independent - Tuesday 21 July 2009
>>> 'This Government has developed a bizarre hatred for a certain kind of 
>>> live music. Chilling with the kids at the Latitude Festival this 
>>> weekend, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Ben 
>>> Bradshaw, looked extraordinarily relaxed for someone whose ministry had 
>>> just dealt a hammer blow to musical expression in the UK. Participating 
>>> in a packed debate about media, Bradshaw had been amiable, almost 
>>> liberal, in his views about Page Three girls and the celebrity culture.
>>> 'It is music for which his Government has developed a bizarre, sustained 
>>> hatred - or, to be more accurate, a certain kind of music. There is no 
>>> problem with the big, moneyed, well-sponsored acts of the type 
>>> performing on the main stages of Latitude and other festivals. It is the 
>>> kind of acts found on the fringes of these events - small, scruffy, 
>>> dangerously individual and spontaneous - which seems to frighten 
>>> ministers, and has caused them to dump yet another mess of pointless 
>>> legislation on to the statute books.
>>> 'Six years ago, the Blair Government decided, for reasons which were and 
>>> remain mysterious, that live music - that is, any music, acoustic or 
>>> amplified, played by one musician or more in a public place - causes a 
>>> threat to public order. It passed the Licensing Act, which required pubs 
>>> or clubs to fill out a complicated form and pay for a permit from the 
>>> local council.
>>
>> Not strictly true.
>>
>> All public premises (pubs, clubs, village halls etc.) had to apply for a 
>> new Premises Licence on inception of the new Act.
>>
>> The new licence had only to be applied for once, as opposed to needing to 
>> be renewed annually, which saved licensees money.
>>
>> The new all-in-one licence could include sale of alcohol, live music, 
>> recorded music, singing, dancing, theatrical performances, whatever, and 
>> would replace their old Magistrates' Court Alcohol Licence and/or their 
>> Public Entertainments Licence (if they had one). Prior to the new Act, 
>> there was an anomaly whereby one or two musicians could play without the 
>> licensee needing to have a Public Entertainments Licence. This exception 
>> ended on the inception of the new Act.
>>
>> However, some licensees (for whatever reason - see below) made the 
>> decision not to tick the "live music" box when they applied for their new 
>> Premises Licence.
>> It is only in premises such as these where one or two people are now 
>> barred from performing.
>>
>> Possible reasons for licensees not ticking the "live music" box on the 
>> application form:
>> 1. They had already received complaints from neighbours about noise and 
>> thought that they might be refused a licence.
>> 2. They knew their premises would be inspected and didn't want to be 
>> refused a new licence because (say) they knew they had unsafe electrical 
>> wiring, indaequate fire exits, extinguishers, etc.
>>
>> I have first-hand knowledge of how this happened, as amongst other 
>> things, I'm secretary of our local village hall committee and was/still 
>> am the licensee.
>> We passed the inspection with no problems and now reguarly put on discos, 
>> dances, theatre performances - and yes, bands (of any size).
>>
>> Contrarily, the ex-landlord of the pub in next village told me that he 
>> didn't tick the live music box as he thought he might have to spend money 
>> on upgrading his pub to meet current safety standards! Thus, his 
>> occassional two-in-a-bar bands could no longer play there.
>> Since the pub changed hands, the present licensee applied for - and was 
>> granted - a full music licence, and didn't after all need to do any 
>> upgrades. The place is now thriving, with regular band performances and 
>> an open-mic night every Monday.
>>
>>
>>
>>> 'There would be no exceptions. A person playing a ukulele accompanied by 
>>> someone else on a triangle would be breaking the law if the act appeared 
>>> in a pub without the required license. There was no control, on the 
>>> other hand, over noise blaring from a large TV screen or from recorded 
>>> music.
>>> 'This bafflingly silly piece of legislation, which punished musicians 
>>> and publicans, two professions that were already in difficulty, had the 
>>> effect of causing many pubs to abandon live music. After a long 
>>> campaign, headed by the charity UK Music, sanity seemed to have broken 
>>> through in May when a Commons Select Committee looking into the act 
>>> concluded that music should not automatically be considered a disruptive 
>>> activity. The 'draconian' law had discouraged performance, 'especially 
>>> by young musicians'.
>>> 'The Government has just rejected the committee's recommendations. Ben 
>>> Bradshaw has decreed that, when it comes to music's potential for 
>>> stirring violence, the number of musicians or the size of audience is 
>>> irrelevant. Clearly bored by the subject, the Department of Culture, 
>>> Media and Sport has said that the subject is now closed.
>>> 'Could someone in government, in the ministry, in the police, explain 
>>> the thinking behind this idiocy? Surely even the most blinkered, 
>>> legislation-addicted minister can see that it is not music which causes 
>>> trouble when people are gathered together, but alcohol. It is asinine to 
>>> blame musicians for what is a general social problem.
>>> 'There has been extraordinarily little evidence to back up the 
>>> Government's position - no sobering statistics about guitar riots, or 
>>> chilling accounts of accordion-related violence. Feebly, a civil servant 
>>> has argued that, in spite of the Licensing Act, the venues putting on 
>>> live music in the UK have increased since 2007.
>>> 'Of course they have. Surely, the news has reached Whitehall by now that 
>>> Britain is going through a musical renaissance. There has been a huge 
>>> increase in the numbers of those who attend concerts and festivals. In 
>>> an age of control and corporatism, when so much of life and work is 
>>> mediated through screens, performed music is a defiant, and increasingly 
>>> powerful, expression of the individual human spirit.
>>> 'Could that, just possibly, be the problem? Is the reason why 
>>> politicians fear the kind of music which is not controlled by sponsors 
>>> or huge marketing interests that it represents freedom? A government 
>>> which likes to boast of the country's "creative industries" is one which 
>>> deals with life as if it were part of a big business. Everything must be 
>>> licensed, controlled.
>>> 'There is a sad irony here for those who have voted Labour down the 
>>> years. The last time there was an explosion of song-writing outside the 
>>> power of record companies was some 45 years ago. At that time, a Labour 
>>> government briefly had the courage to embrace musical performance as 
>>> part of a young and changing Britain.
>>> 'Today, those in charge are wary of unlicensed spontaneity. This absurd 
>>> campaign against musicians, particularly young musicians, may not be the 
>>> most grievous act of this Government but it represents a spirit of 
>>> petty-mindedness and fear which will cost it dearly over the next 12 
>>> months.'
>>
>> In all of this tirade, which is highly emotional and makes many 
>> assumptions, the author failed to mention the Met Police's Form 696, 
>> which, to my mind, *does* need to be scrapped.
>> For Londoners and those living in areas where their local police and 
>> council have adopted it, licensees have to answer searching questions 
>> about each gig, the band, the likely audience, etc, which in many cases 
>> might be ruled as racist. Thankfully, our local police and council 
>> haven't (yet) adopted this measure.
>>
>> George
>
> If this wonderful legislation is so good why is so much
> time and effort being spent on trying to undo at least
> some of the damage it's done?

I really don't know. I can only speak from my own personal experience as (a) 
a licensee, (b) a member of a band and (c) a drinker! (and a smoker too but 
that's another story).
In my local area, I can only reiterate that it's had little or no 
detrimental effect in practical terms.
Most if not all of the pubs have now at last got round to adding live music 
to their premises licences, which would have cost them nothing had they done 
so in the first place.
And as I said earlier, once a new-style licence is granted, that's it. No 
more annual renewals/payments.
I really don't see what the problem is here.

> As ever this bunch of control freaks are refusing to accept
> they got it wrong.

Perhaps they didn't get it wrong? Would you have said that if a government 
of another colour did similar?
(Not that I hold any brief for the current lot!)
As someone once said, whichever way you vote, the government always gets in.
And governments tend to govern, unfortunately...

> Whether the hoops one is required to jump through
> to get a license are real or perceived

Perceived, I'd say.

> the fact remains that so many venues did not apply for the music license
> previously not required

Not true - it was perviously required. It was called a Public Entertainments 
Licence and it had to be renewed - and paid for - annually, unlike the 
current one.


>(2 in a bar venues in many cases)
That was an anomaly in the old law, to my mind. What's the difference 
between a 2-man band and a 3-man band? Not a lot, I'd say.
And why should the 2-man band have been able to play anywhere when the 3-man 
band couldn't? Now *that* was unfair in my eyes.

> that live music has been badly hit....that is without doubt.
> That assessment of the situation is essentially correct.
> Bad and totally unnecessary legislation that has
> killed many small live music venues

A matter of opinion, not borne out by facts - at least in this area.

> yet encourages excessive drinking. Brilliant.

I'd agree with the above - good innit!
;-)

George

"George Weston"  wrote in message 
news:7cuaccF294cglU1@mid.individual.net...
> I really don't know. I can only speak from my own personal experience as 
> (a) a licensee, (b) a member of a band and (c) a drinker! (and a smoker 
> too but that's another story).

George,

You're wasting your time mate.

In the words of Paddy McAloon "There's nothing they'll hear that you'd want 
to say".

Cheers,
Steve W

"FatBoySlimFast"  wrote in message 
news:8eOdnfPSOZlJlffXnZ2dnUVZ8k-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> "George Weston"  wrote in message 
> news:7cuaccF294cglU1@mid.individual.net...
>> I really don't know. I can only speak from my own personal experience as 
>> (a) a licensee, (b) a member of a band and (c) a drinker! (and a smoker 
>> too but that's another story).
>
> George,
>
> You're wasting your time mate.
>
> In the words of Paddy McAloon "There's nothing they'll hear that you'd 
> want to say".

Along the lines of "If I was going there, I wouldn't start from here".
;-)

George

"George Weston"  wrote in message 
news:7cug7nF28207aU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "FatBoySlimFast"  wrote in message 
> news:8eOdnfPSOZlJlffXnZ2dnUVZ8k-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>> "George Weston"  wrote in message 
>> news:7cuaccF294cglU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> I really don't know. I can only speak from my own personal experience as 
>>> (a) a licensee, (b) a member of a band and (c) a drinker! (and a smoker 
>>> too but that's another story).
>>
>> George,
>>
>> You're wasting your time mate.
>>
>> In the words of Paddy McAloon "There's nothing they'll hear that you'd 
>> want to say".
>
> Along the lines of "If I was going there, I wouldn't start from here".
> ;-)
>
> George
>
And I'm not wasting any more time debating with someone
who thinks 24 hr boozing is a good thing.
-C-
-C-

fourstring wrote:
> "George Weston"  wrote in message 
> news:7cug7nF28207aU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "FatBoySlimFast"  wrote in message 
>> news:8eOdnfPSOZlJlffXnZ2dnUVZ8k-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>> "George Weston"  wrote in message 
>>> news:7cuaccF294cglU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> I really don't know. I can only speak from my own personal experience as 
>>>> (a) a licensee, (b) a member of a band and (c) a drinker! (and a smoker 
>>>> too but that's another story).
>>> George,
>>>
>>> You're wasting your time mate.
>>>
>>> In the words of Paddy McAloon "There's nothing they'll hear that you'd 
>>> want to say".
>> Along the lines of "If I was going there, I wouldn't start from here".
>> ;-)
>>
>> George
>>
> And I'm not wasting any more time debating with someone
> who thinks 24 hr boozing is a good thing.
> -C-
> -C- 

<splutter>

It's always been available here in this house.

Changes in the law didn't affect that.

"fourstring"  wrote in message 
news:Jxoam.100964$ay4.39068@newsfe27.ams2...
>
>
> "George Weston"  wrote in message 
> news:7cug7nF28207aU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "FatBoySlimFast"  wrote in 
>> message news:8eOdnfPSOZlJlffXnZ2dnUVZ8k-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>> "George Weston"  wrote in message 
>>> news:7cuaccF294cglU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> I really don't know. I can only speak from my own personal experience 
>>>> as (a) a licensee, (b) a member of a band and (c) a drinker! (and a 
>>>> smoker too but that's another story).
>>>
>>> George,
>>>
>>> You're wasting your time mate.
>>>
>>> In the words of Paddy McAloon "There's nothing they'll hear that you'd 
>>> want to say".
>>
>> Along the lines of "If I was going there, I wouldn't start from here".
>> ;-)
>>
>> George
>>
> And I'm not wasting any more time debating with someone
> who thinks 24 hr boozing is a good thing.

Depends what you mean by that (mustn't think in clichés or sound-bites, must 
we?).
I'll admit that 24-hour boozing, taken literally, would probably kill me 
after just one day.
However, the ability to legally buy a pint or two, say at 4pm after a 
strenuous hill-walk, or a few wind-down whiskeys after a gig at 1am is 
another thing altogether.
And while we're on the subject, not many establishments have taken the 
opportunity to apply for (or have been granted) a licence to stay open for a 
full 24 hours a day anyway.
Most have decided to go for what is appropriate for them and their market. 
Around here, that means opening at about 12 noon and closing at midnight, 
which is pretty well acceptable in my point of view. Additionally, many of 
these pubs often only open at these extended times at weekends, with many 
closing earlier during the week and perhaps also closing altogether on 
Mondays, when there's not a lot of custom.
Yes, in the big cities there will always be the fast-buck merchants who will 
encourage binge-drinkers to frequent their sticky-carpet vomitoriums at all 
hours but anyone who visits such places and partakes in such activities 
deserves all they get, which ain't pleasant.
They will learn or die, which is what freedom of choice and evolution is all 
about.

George

"fourstring"  wrote in message 
news:Jxoam.100964$ay4.39068@newsfe27.ams2...
> And I'm not wasting any more time debating with someone
> who thinks 24 hr boozing is a good thing.

Brilliant. Twist what George says to suit your pre-conceptions and then 
dismiss anything he may say because you don't agree with you assertion 
you've projected onto him.

Nice one.

Steve W

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:09:12 +0100, "fourstring"
 wrote:

>
>
>"George Weston"  wrote in message 
>news:7cug7nF28207aU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "FatBoySlimFast"  wrote in message 
>> news:8eOdnfPSOZlJlffXnZ2dnUVZ8k-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>> "George Weston"  wrote in message 
>>> news:7cuaccF294cglU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> I really don't know. I can only speak from my own personal experience as 
>>>> (a) a licensee, (b) a member of a band and (c) a drinker! (and a smoker 
>>>> too but that's another story).
>>>
>>> George,
>>>
>>> You're wasting your time mate.
>>>
>>> In the words of Paddy McAloon "There's nothing they'll hear that you'd 
>>> want to say".
>>
>> Along the lines of "If I was going there, I wouldn't start from here".
>> ;-)
>>
>> George
>>
>And I'm not wasting any more time debating with someone
>who thinks 24 hr boozing is a good thing.
>-C-
>-C- 
>

Mostly, it's 24 hour bullshitting noisily. Most publicans prefer to
have a cocoa and go to bed.

Pete

On Jul 24, 9:09 pm, "fourstring"  wrote:

> And I'm not wasting any more time debating with someone
> who thinks 24 hr boozing is a good thing.

Do we really need to return to those days of "no, it doesn't mean
there'll be people throwing up in your garden 24 hours a day", etc? I
don't honestly know of any pub that stays open for 24-hour stints. I
live in a fairly well-populated urban area and all that changed is
that the High Street pubs are all open until 1am on weekend nights,
rather than just a couple. My own local stuck to the old closing
times, and the other little pub I frequent stays open until midnight.
Even the police have admitted that there doesn't seem to have been any
increase in alcohol-related problems.


adrian

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:33:55 +0100, "Nildram" 
wrote:

> performed music is a defiant, and increasingly powerful, 
>expression of the individual human spirit.
>'Could that, just possibly, be the problem? Is the reason why politicians 
>fear the kind of music which is not controlled by sponsors or huge marketing 
>interests that it represents freedom?

Anyone else thinking "2112" here?
-- 
Chris Bolus (change o to zero to reply by email)
A guitar is for life, not just for Christmas!

On Jul 25, 1:32 pm, Chris Bolus  wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:33:55 퍝, "Nildram" 
> wrote:
>
> > performed music is a defiant, and increasingly powerful,
> >expression of the individual human spirit.
> >'Could that, just possibly, be the problem? Is the reason why politicians
> >fear the kind of music which is not controlled by sponsors or huge marketing
> >interests that it represents freedom?
>
> Anyone else thinking "2112" here?
> --
>


.......or perhaps the opening words of the musical version of We Will
Rock You are actually happening.   Ben Elton might have been more
accurate than he thought.

andrew

On Jul 25, 1:32 pm, Chris Bolus  wrote:

> Anyone else thinking "2112" here?

You mean his post was very long and rather thin on actual material,
representing something of an awkward transitional phase? BUT his next
6 posts will be tighter and more disciplined, and while the first of
those will be a little patchy the other 5 will be classics, pushing
into new post-writing approaches.

I'm reading far too much into this, aren't I? ;-)


adrian

"fourstring"  wrote in message 
news:Jxoam.100964$ay4.39068@newsfe27.ams2...
>
>
> "George Weston"  wrote in message 
> news:7cug7nF28207aU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "FatBoySlimFast"  wrote in 
>> message news:8eOdnfPSOZlJlffXnZ2dnUVZ8k-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>> "George Weston"  wrote in message 
>>> news:7cuaccF294cglU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> I really don't know. I can only speak from my own personal experience 
>>>> as (a) a licensee, (b) a member of a band and (c) a drinker! (and a 
>>>> smoker too but that's another story).
>>>
>>> George,
>>>
>>> You're wasting your time mate.
>>>
>>> In the words of Paddy McAloon "There's nothing they'll hear that you'd 
>>> want to say".
>>
>> Along the lines of "If I was going there, I wouldn't start from here".
>> ;-)
>>
>> George
>>
> And I'm not wasting any more time debating with someone
> who thinks 24 hr boozing is a good thing.


If you think availability of alcohol is the problem you're clearly 
delusional. Look outside. Where I come from (and my country isn't unique!) I 
was able to buy a glass of beer in a bar when I was 14, so were my friends. 
No time restrictions about when you can buy alcohol... and we didn't seem to 
have such big alcohol-related problems.
I'm not saying that 14 year olds drinking is a good thing... but it doesn't 
necessarily turn them into thugs or alcoholics. What has got to change is 
the attitude towards alcohol. Use it, don't abuse it. How to get that into 
the minds of people... I don't know. I suspect only by example... 
Restricting alcohol sales, making it look as the way to have fun rather than 
something you drink *while* you are having fun, doesn't seem to work, does 
it? As long as alcohol is still seen as a *way* to have fun, alcohol will 
remain a problem. When somebody talks about how much they drank last night 
that they don't remember things, and the comment is met with approving 
laughter... alcohol will remain a problem.

I cannot understand how adults can regularly vomit on teh streets every 
weekend, and still think they're ok and it's fun.

It is ridiculously simplistic to suggest that restricting sales of alcohol 
can be a solution. It addresses (badly) a symptom, but not the cause.

Jose
-- 
www.mcnach.com
Richt Hoat Chillies: http://www.myspace.com/rhcpscot  - Bass: OLP MM2
Conscious Route: http://www.myspace.com/consciousroute  - Bass: Warwick 
Corvette $$
www.myspace.com/purplenoise68
-
Current favourite guitar: Fender 'Sambora' Stratocaster
Current favourite bass: OLP MM2 (Stingray)

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:24:09 +0100, "Jose de las Heras"
 wrote:

>
>"fourstring"  wrote in message 
>news:Jxoam.100964$ay4.39068@newsfe27.ams2...
>>
>>
>> "George Weston"  wrote in message 
>> news:7cug7nF28207aU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "FatBoySlimFast"  wrote in 
>>> message news:8eOdnfPSOZlJlffXnZ2dnUVZ8k-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>>> "George Weston"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:7cuaccF294cglU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> I really don't know. I can only speak from my own personal experience 
>>>>> as (a) a licensee, (b) a member of a band and (c) a drinker! (and a 
>>>>> smoker too but that's another story).
>>>>
>>>> George,
>>>>
>>>> You're wasting your time mate.
>>>>
>>>> In the words of Paddy McAloon "There's nothing they'll hear that you'd 
>>>> want to say".
>>>
>>> Along the lines of "If I was going there, I wouldn't start from here".
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> George
>>>
>> And I'm not wasting any more time debating with someone
>> who thinks 24 hr boozing is a good thing.
>
>
>If you think availability of alcohol is the problem you're clearly 
>delusional. Look outside. Where I come from (and my country isn't unique!) I 
>was able to buy a glass of beer in a bar when I was 14, so were my friends. 
>No time restrictions about when you can buy alcohol... and we didn't seem to 
>have such big alcohol-related problems.
>I'm not saying that 14 year olds drinking is a good thing... but it doesn't 
>necessarily turn them into thugs or alcoholics. What has got to change is 
>the attitude towards alcohol. Use it, don't abuse it. How to get that into 
>the minds of people... I don't know. I suspect only by example... 
>Restricting alcohol sales, making it look as the way to have fun rather than 
>something you drink *while* you are having fun, doesn't seem to work, does 
>it? As long as alcohol is still seen as a *way* to have fun, alcohol will 
>remain a problem. When somebody talks about how much they drank last night 
>that they don't remember things, and the comment is met with approving 
>laughter... alcohol will remain a problem.
>
>I cannot understand how adults can regularly vomit on teh streets every 
>weekend, and still think they're ok and it's fun.
>
>It is ridiculously simplistic to suggest that restricting sales of alcohol 
>can be a solution. It addresses (badly) a symptom, but not the cause.
>
>Jose

Years of repression, Jose...In the rest of the continent alcohol is
just another part of life - take it or leave it. The Scandinavian
countries are really scared of it though and the people who get into
the booze in Sweden and Finland don't just puke on Saturday nights -
they get into real trouble and die young.

I don't know how much time I've spent on the continent but I've never
seen hordes of young people out getting smashed (although the guys in
Barcelona can put on a pretty good show).

You tell us we can't have it, we want it, simples..:-)

Besides, alcohol is a pretty sure-fire way to kick the fun off...

Pete

Hi,

anything@contractorcom.com wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:24:09 +0100, "Jose de las Heras"
>  wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> It is ridiculously simplistic to suggest that restricting sales of alcohol 
>> can be a solution. It addresses (badly) a symptom, but not the cause.
>>
>> Jose
> 
> Years of repression, Jose...In the rest of the continent alcohol is
> just another part of life - take it or leave it. The Scandinavian
> countries are really scared of it though and the people who get into
> the booze in Sweden and Finland don't just puke on Saturday nights -
> they get into real trouble and die young.

As a finn I felt obliged to reply :-)

When you look at the amount of alcohol consumed, then certainly Finland 
is right up there, especially in the stats for spirits (possibly less so 
for beer). And we don't have that continental attitude of casual 
drinking, a glass wine with the meal etc., though that might be more 
popular now than it was before. But usually when finns drink, we drink 
in order to get drunk.

I did a quick google search but couldn't find stats for alcoholism or 
alcohol-related deaths. It would be interested to see how Finland 
compares to rest of Europe. I do have some examples of the former in my 
extended family though :-(

But about UK, one thing I noticed when I moved here (in 2001) was the 
_speed_ of drinking. I went out with a couple of friends (admittedly 
harder than average drinkers) and I had barely had a couple of sips of 
my pint and they were ordering the next round! It seemed that because of 
  the 11 o'clock deadline people were trying to get as drunk as possible 
before the pub closes. We don't have that in Finland. Bars stay open 
late so there is no need to rush.

There certainly _seems_ to be more binge drinking here in the UK, but 
that may just be my personal perception due to there being so much more 
people here and the amount of media coverage it gets...

The "24-hour drinking" law won't change the drinking culture in an 
instant, but hopefully with time it will. By the way, calling it that 
was a bit of a PR disaster. Was it invented by the media? In any case it 
gave the opponents a fantastic way to frighten people with the idea of 
all pubs staying open 24 hours and everyone being drunk all the time, 
which of course didn't happen and was never going to happen.

Regards (or should I say cheers),
                                  Kari

On Jul 24, 7:00 pm, "fourstring"  wrote:
> "George Weston"  wrote in message
>
> news:7ctu02F290oteU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Nildram"  wrote in message
> >news:ucmdnfjIItSrN_TXnZ2dnUVZ8iydnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> >> "Adrian Legg"  wrote in message
> >>news:9MidnSSvNoE86PjXnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >>> The Government has rejected all three recommendations affecting music
> >>> made in
> >>> the Culture,
> >>> Media and Sport Select Committee¹s report on the Licensing Act 2003> >>> The
> >>> report¹s main
> >>> recommendations in terms of music were to scrap form 696, to introduce
> >>> an
> >>> exemption for venues of
> >>> a capacity of below 200 and to reintroduce the two in a bar rule.
>
> >>> --
>
> >>> <http://www.adrianlegg.com/>
> >>> <http://www.facebook.com/adrianlegg>
>
> >> The piece below sums up the crass stupidity inherent in Noo Laber.
> >> I seem to remember trying to drum up support here to fight this bill
> >> and got told basically to sod off as 'it is a good thing' for live music.
> >> Well it ain't.
>
> >> Terence Blacker of the Independent has written the best article yet on
> >> recent entertainment licensing developments:
>
> >> 'Where are the guitar riots and accordian assaults? Terence Blacker - The
> >> Independent - Tuesday 21 July 2009
> >> 'This Government has developed a bizarre hatred for a certain kind of
> >> live music. Chilling with the kids at the Latitude Festival this weekend,
> >> the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Ben Bradshaw, looked
> >> extraordinarily relaxed for someone whose ministry had just dealt a
> >> hammer blow to musical expression in the UK. Participating in a packed
> >> debate about media, Bradshaw had been amiable, almost liberal, in his
> >> views about Page Three girls and the celebrity culture.
> >> 'It is music for which his Government has developed a bizarre, sustained
> >> hatred - or, to be more accurate, a certain kind of music. There is no
> >> problem with the big, moneyed, well-sponsored acts of the type performing
> >> on the main stages of Latitude and other festivals. It is the kind of
> >> acts found on the fringes of these events - small, scruffy, dangerously
> >> individual and spontaneous - which seems to frighten ministers, and has
> >> caused them to dump yet another mess of pointless legislation on to the
> >> statute books.
> >> 'Six years ago, the Blair Government decided, for reasons which were and
> >> remain mysterious, that live music - that is, any music, acoustic or
> >> amplified, played by one musician or more in a public place - causes a
> >> threat to public order. It passed the Licensing Act, which required pubs
> >> or clubs to fill out a complicated form and pay for a permit from the
> >> local council.
>
> > Not strictly true.
>
> > All public premises (pubs, clubs, village halls etc.) had to apply for a
> > new Premises Licence on inception of the new Act.
>
> > The new licence had only to be applied for once, as opposed to needing to
> > be renewed annually, which saved licensees money.
>
> > The new all-in-one licence could include sale of alcohol, live music,
> > recorded music, singing, dancing, theatrical performances, whatever, and
> > would replace their old Magistrates' Court Alcohol Licence and/or their
> > Public Entertainments Licence (if they had one). Prior to the new Act,
> > there was an anomaly whereby one or two musicians could play without the
> > licensee needing to have a Public Entertainments Licence. This exception
> > ended on the inception of the new Act.
>
> > However, some licensees (for whatever reason - see below) made the
> > decision not to tick the "live music" box when they applied for their new
> > Premises Licence.
> > It is only in premises such as these where one or two people are now
> > barred from performing.
>
> > Possible reasons for licensees not ticking the "live music" box on the
> > application form:
> > 1. They had already received complaints from neighbours about noise and
> > thought that they might be refused a licence.
> > 2. They knew their premises would be inspected and didn't want to be
> > refused a new licence because (say) they knew they had unsafe electrical
> > wiring, indaequate fire exits, extinguishers, etc.
>
> > I have first-hand knowledge of how this happened, as amongst other things,
> > I'm secretary of our local village hall committee and was/still am the
> > licensee.
> > We passed the inspection with no problems and now reguarly put on discos,
> > dances, theatre performances - and yes, bands (of any size).
>
> > Contrarily, the ex-landlord of the pub in next village told me that he
> > didn't tick the live music box as he thought he might have to spend money
> > on upgrading his pub to meet current safety standards! Thus, his
> > occassional two-in-a-bar bands could no longer play there.
> > Since the pub changed hands, the present licensee applied for - and was
> > granted - a full music licence, and didn't after all need to do any
> > upgrades. The place is now thriving, with regular band performances and an
> > open-mic night every Monday.
>
> >> 'There would be no exceptions. A person playing a ukulele accompanied by
> >> someone else on a triangle would be breaking the law if the act appeared
> >> in a pub without the required license. There was no control, on the other
> >> hand, over noise blaring from a large TV screen or from recorded music> >> 'This bafflingly silly piece of legislation, which punished musicians and
> >> publicans, two professions that were already in difficulty, had the
> >> effect of causing many pubs to abandon live music. After a long campaign,
> >> headed by the charity UK Music, sanity seemed to have broken through in
> >> May when a Commons Select Committee looking into the act concluded that
> >> music should not automatically be considered a disruptive activity. The
> >> 'draconian' law had discouraged performance, 'especially by young
> >> musicians'.
> >> 'The Government has just rejected the committee's recommendations. Ben
> >> Bradshaw has decreed that, when it comes to music's potential for
> >> stirring violence, the number of musicians or the size of audience is
> >> irrelevant. Clearly bored by the subject, the Department of Culture,
> >> Media and Sport has said that the subject is now closed.
> >> 'Could someone in government, in the ministry, in the police, explain the
> >> thinking behind this idiocy? Surely even the most blinkered,
> >> legislation-addicted minister can see that it is not music which causes
> >> trouble when people are gathered together, but alcohol. It is asinine to
> >> blame musicians for what is a general social problem.
> >> 'There has been extraordinarily little evidence to back up the
> >> Government's position - no sobering statistics about guitar riots, or
> >> chilling accounts of accordion-related violence. Feebly, a civil servant
> >> has argued that, in spite of the Licensing Act, the venues putting on
> >> live music in the UK have increased since 2007.
> >> 'Of course they have. Surely, the news has reached Whitehall by now that
> >> Britain is going through a musical renaissance. There has been a huge
> >> increase in the numbers of those who attend concerts and festivals. In an
> >> age of control and corporatism, when so much of life and work is mediated
> >> through screens, performed music is a defiant, and increasingly powerful,
> >> expression of the individual human spirit.
> >> 'Could that, just possibly, be the problem? Is the reason why politicians
> >> fear the kind of music which is not controlled by sponsors or huge
> >> marketing interests that it represents freedom? A government which likes
> >> to boast of the country's "creative industries" is one which deals with
> >> life as if it were part of a big business. Everything must be licensed> >> controlled.
> >> 'There is a sad irony here for those who have voted Labour down the
> >> years. The last time there was an explosion of song-writing outside the
> >> power of record companies was some 45 years ago. At that time, a Labour
> >> government briefly had the courage to embrace musical performance as part
> >> of a young and changing Britain.
> >> 'Today, those in charge are wary of unlicensed spontaneity. This absurd
> >> campaign against musicians, particularly young musicians, may not be the
> >> most grievous act of this Government but it represents a spirit of
> >> petty-mindedness and fear which will cost it dearly over the next 12
> >> months.'
>
> > In all of this tirade, which is highly emotional and makes many
> > assumptions, the author failed to mention the Met Police's Form 696,
> > which, to my mind, *does* need to be scrapped.
> > For Londoners and those living in areas where their local police and
> > council have adopted it, licensees have to answer searching questions
> > about each gig, the band, the likely audience, etc, which in many cases
> > might be ruled as racist. Thankfully, our local police and council haven't
> > (yet) adopted this measure.
>
> > George
>
> If this wonderful legislation is so good why is so much
> time and effort being spent on trying to undo at least
> some of the damage it's done?
> As ever this bunch of control freaks are refusing to accept
> they got it wrong.
>
> Whether the hoops one is required to jump through
> to get a license are real or perceived the fact remains
> that so many venues did not apply for the music license
> previously not required (2 in a bar venues in many cases)
> that live music has been badly hit....that is without doubt.
> That assessment of the situation is essentially correct.
> Bad and totally unnecessary legislation that has
> killed many small live music venues yet encourages
> excessive drinking.
> Brilliant.
> -C-


I hardly think that current UK Government legislation can be said to
encourage binge-drinking.  According to recent reports, on average, 52
pubs closed their doors permanently each week of 2008.  The pubs that
have stayed open are usually those which have diversified into food.
Publicans are quoted as blaming the cost of drinking in a pub due to
the high duties compared to buying in an off-licence and consuming at
home, as well as the smoking ban.  I've noticed that every time I go
back home, more and more pubs are shuttered and up for sale.

What really worries me is that no-one seems to be addressing binge-
drinking as a symptom of some greater malaise affecting the public.

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:24:09 +0100, "Jose de las Heras"
 wrote:

>
>"fourstring"  wrote in message 
>news:Jxoam.100964$ay4.39068@newsfe27.ams2...
>>
>>>
>> And I'm not wasting any more time debating with someone
>> who thinks 24 hr boozing is a good thing.
>
>
>If you think availability of alcohol is the problem you're clearly 
>delusional. Look outside. Where I come from (and my country isn't unique!) I 
>was able to buy a glass of beer in a bar when I was 14, so were my friends. 
>No time restrictions about when you can buy alcohol... and we didn't seem to 
>have such big alcohol-related problems.
>I'm not saying that 14 year olds drinking is a good thing... but it doesn't 
>necessarily turn them into thugs or alcoholics. What has got to change is 
>the attitude towards alcohol. Use it, don't abuse it. How to get that into 
>the minds of people... I don't know. I suspect only by example... 
>Restricting alcohol sales, making it look as the way to have fun rather than 
>something you drink *while* you are having fun, doesn't seem to work, does 
>it? As long as alcohol is still seen as a *way* to have fun, alcohol will 
>remain a problem. When somebody talks about how much they drank last night 
>that they don't remember things, and the comment is met with approving 
>laughter... alcohol will remain a problem.
>
>I cannot understand how adults can regularly vomit on teh streets every 
>weekend, and still think they're ok and it's fun.
>
>It is ridiculously simplistic to suggest that restricting sales of alcohol 
>can be a solution. It addresses (badly) a symptom, but not the cause.
>
A deeply-ingrained cultural issue which runs alongside the celebration
of mediocrity. I don't know why, or how to change it. I teach many young
people whose sole ambition is to get a job which pays enough to go out
and get slaughtered on Friday night. Many of them have horizons which
extend no further than the nearby (8 miles) city. How exactly do we
change that?
-- 
Chris Bolus (change o to zero to reply by email)
A guitar is for life, not just for Christmas!

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:30:05 GMT, Kari 
wrote:

>As a finn I felt obliged to reply :-)
>
>When you look at the amount of alcohol consumed, then certainly Finland 
>is right up there, especially in the stats for spirits (possibly less so 
>for beer).

Easy - cold weather - spirits warm you, beer just makes you want to pee
more often!
-- 
Chris Bolus (change o to zero to reply by email)
A guitar is for life, not just for Christmas!

Chris Bolus wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:30:05 GMT, Kari 
> wrote:
> 
>> As a finn I felt obliged to reply :-)
>>
>> When you look at the amount of alcohol consumed, then certainly Finland 
>> is right up there, especially in the stats for spirits (possibly less so 
>> for beer).
> 
> Easy - cold weather - spirits warm you, beer just makes you want to pee
> more often!

Cold weather & peeing outside is not a good combination. It's difficult 
enough to find what you need to find through all those layers of clothing!!

  -- Kari

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Adrian Clark wrote in post :
<news:f741314a-0e62-412c-a829-6c4d25420c8a@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> :

> On Jul 25, 1:32 pm, Chris Bolus  wrote:
> 
>> Anyone else thinking "2112" here?
> 
> You mean his post was very long and rather thin on actual material,
> representing something of an awkward transitional phase? BUT his next
> 6 posts will be tighter and more disciplined, and while the first of
> those will be a little patchy the other 5 will be classics, pushing
> into new post-writing approaches.
> 
> I'm reading far too much into this, aren't I? ;-)
> 
> adrian

lol! It was very funny, just the same.
-- 
Tim C.

"Chris Bolus"  wrote in message 
news:bth075do0mv2qdbinvedau0tv4a52kplas@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:30:05 GMT, Kari 
> wrote:
>
>>As a finn I felt obliged to reply :-)
>>
>>When you look at the amount of alcohol consumed, then certainly Finland
>>is right up there, especially in the stats for spirits (possibly less so
>>for beer).
>
> Easy - cold weather - spirits warm you, beer just makes you want to pee
> more often!

Not quite true, Chris.

Spirits may *appear* to warm you but the opposite happens physically - the 
body's core-temperature reduces and the onset of hypothermia is brought 
forward.
Having spent a good few years of my earlier life involved with extreme 
outdoor activities, that was one of the first things I learned.

If you're out on the hills, don't drink alcohol until you're back safely in 
the warm and dry.
And don't ever give alcohol to an injured or collapsed person; get them out 
of the wind, wrap them up in something warm and give them a warm, 
non-alcoholic drink if safe to do so.

Thankfully, I've long retired from such activities so I can - and do - get 
pissed regularly!

Oh - and *all* alcohol is a diuretic.

George

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:30:05 GMT, Kari 
wrote:

>
>   Hi,
>
>anything@contractorcom.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:24:09 +0100, "Jose de las Heras"
>>  wrote:
><snip>
>>>
>>> It is ridiculously simplistic to suggest that restricting sales of alcohol 
>>> can be a solution. It addresses (badly) a symptom, but not the cause.
>>>
>>> Jose
>> 
>> Years of repression, Jose...In the rest of the continent alcohol is
>> just another part of life - take it or leave it. The Scandinavian
>> countries are really scared of it though and the people who get into
>> the booze in Sweden and Finland don't just puke on Saturday nights -
>> they get into real trouble and die young.
>
>As a finn I felt obliged to reply :-)
>
>When you look at the amount of alcohol consumed, then certainly Finland 
>is right up there, especially in the stats for spirits (possibly less so 
>for beer). And we don't have that continental attitude of casual 
>drinking, a glass wine with the meal etc., though that might be more 
>popular now than it was before. But usually when finns drink, we drink 
>in order to get drunk.
>
>I did a quick google search but couldn't find stats for alcoholism or 
>alcohol-related deaths. It would be interested to see how Finland 
>compares to rest of Europe. I do have some examples of the former in my 
>extended family though :-(
>
>But about UK, one thing I noticed when I moved here (in 2001) was the 
>_speed_ of drinking. I went out with a couple of friends (admittedly 
>harder than average drinkers) and I had barely had a couple of sips of 
>my pint and they were ordering the next round! It seemed that because of 
>  the 11 o'clock deadline people were trying to get as drunk as possible 
>before the pub closes. We don't have that in Finland. Bars stay open 
>late so there is no need to rush.
>
>There certainly _seems_ to be more binge drinking here in the UK, but 
>that may just be my personal perception due to there being so much more 
>people here and the amount of media coverage it gets...
>
>The "24-hour drinking" law won't change the drinking culture in an 
>instant, but hopefully with time it will. By the way, calling it that 
>was a bit of a PR disaster. Was it invented by the media? In any case it 
>gave the opponents a fantastic way to frighten people with the idea of 
>all pubs staying open 24 hours and everyone being drunk all the time, 
>which of course didn't happen and was never going to happen.
>
>Regards (or should I say cheers),
>                                  Kari

The speed of drinking thing is purely down to the first pint going
down like pop. You may have noticed that the consumption rates decline
as the evening goes on - until someone calls last orders - at which
point everyone goes bonkers.

As a former publican I have taken an interest in this. There was a
considerable amount of research published a few years ago about the
behaviour of the Aryan (ie Danes, Saxons, Norwegian and Finnish)
compared to the Latin, races (Spanish, French, Italians etc). Of
course it's impossible to be specific, but to generalise, the
conclusions people came to in various studies was that Northern
European white people have a greater prediliction for drinking for
it's own sake than do the Southern Europeans.

This may be genetic, or maybe it's becasue of the long winters when
there's little to do except get smashed and wait for the sun to come
out again.

There's also cultural differences. Apart from the Romans, the Latin
countries have taken little interest in grabbing countries by rape and
pillage (both of which are far more fun when you're trashed, hem hem),
and even the Romans had a deep seated concept of how to exploit a
country through administration rather than simply killing all the men.

In other words, the Latin countries didn't need to go over the top -
they'd got everything they needed for a quiet life. Further, making
wine and beer is much less trouble than distilling spirits, and if all
you've got to go on to make your hooch is stuff like turnips, well,
frankly, there's not much point in trying to make something nice
tasting out of it - you might as well make something as punchy as
possible, water it down (or not) and drink it as fast as possible.

Couple that with a short growing season and you've got a recipe for
people making hooch as fast as they could - unlike the winemaking
luxury of fermenting grapes for a month or more.

My own opinion is that we're all Anglo-bleedin'-Saxons and we prefer
to be blasted than sober, but maybe that's just me..:-)

Pete

"Sjfdix"  wrote in message 
news:31d965da-e405-464c-933e-9d14194a8049@o32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 24, 7:00 pm, "fourstring"  wrote:
> "George Weston"  wrote in message
>
> news:7ctu02F290oteU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Nildram"  wrote in message
> >news:ucmdnfjIItSrN_TXnZ2dnUVZ8iydnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> >> "Adrian Legg"  wrote in message
> >>news:9MidnSSvNoE86PjXnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >>> The Government has rejected all three recommendations affecting music
> >>> made in
> >>> the Culture,
> >>> Media and Sport Select Committee¹s report on the Licensing Act 2003.
> >>> The
> >>> report¹s main
> >>> recommendations in terms of music were to scrap form 696, to introduce
> >>> an
> >>> exemption for venues of
> >>> a capacity of below 200 and to reintroduce the two in a bar rule.
>
> >>> --
>
> >>> <http://www.adrianlegg.com/>
> >>> <http://www.facebook.com/adrianlegg>
>
> >> The piece below sums up the crass stupidity inherent in Noo Laber.
> >> I seem to remember trying to drum up support here to fight this bill
> >> and got told basically to sod off as 'it is a good thing' for live 
> >> music.
> >> Well it ain't.
>
> >> Terence Blacker of the Independent has written the best article yet on
> >> recent entertainment licensing developments:
>
> >> 'Where are the guitar riots and accordian assaults? Terence Blacker - 
> >> The
> >> Independent - Tuesday 21 July 2009
> >> 'This Government has developed a bizarre hatred for a certain kind of
> >> live music. Chilling with the kids at the Latitude Festival this 
> >> weekend,
> >> the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Ben Bradshaw, 
> >> looked
> >> extraordinarily relaxed for someone whose ministry had just dealt a
> >> hammer blow to musical expression in the UK. Participating in a packed
> >> debate about media, Bradshaw had been amiable, almost liberal, in his
> >> views about Page Three girls and the celebrity culture.
> >> 'It is music for which his Government has developed a bizarre, 
> >> sustained
> >> hatred - or, to be more accurate, a certain kind of music. There is no
> >> problem with the big, moneyed, well-sponsored acts of the type 
> >> performing
> >> on the main stages of Latitude and other festivals. It is the kind of
> >> acts found on the fringes of these events - small, scruffy, dangerously
> >> individual and spontaneous - which seems to frighten ministers, and has
> >> caused them to dump yet another mess of pointless legislation on to the
> >> statute books.
> >> 'Six years ago, the Blair Government decided, for reasons which were 
> >> and
> >> remain mysterious, that live music - that is, any music, acoustic or
> >> amplified, played by one musician or more in a public place - causes a
> >> threat to public order. It passed the Licensing Act, which required 
> >> pubs
> >> or clubs to fill out a complicated form and pay for a permit from the
> >> local council.
>
> > Not strictly true.
>
> > All public premises (pubs, clubs, village halls etc.) had to apply for a
> > new Premises Licence on inception of the new Act.
>
> > The new licence had only to be applied for once, as opposed to needing 
> > to
> > be renewed annually, which saved licensees money.
>
> > The new all-in-one licence could include sale of alcohol, live music,
> > recorded music, singing, dancing, theatrical performances, whatever, and
> > would replace their old Magistrates' Court Alcohol Licence and/or their
> > Public Entertainments Licence (if they had one). Prior to the new Act,
> > there was an anomaly whereby one or two musicians could play without the
> > licensee needing to have a Public Entertainments Licence. This exception
> > ended on the inception of the new Act.
>
> > However, some licensees (for whatever reason - see below) made the
> > decision not to tick the "live music" box when they applied for their 
> > new
> > Premises Licence.
> > It is only in premises such as these where one or two people are now
> > barred from performing.
>
> > Possible reasons for licensees not ticking the "live music" box on the
> > application form:
> > 1. They had already received complaints from neighbours about noise and
> > thought that they might be refused a licence.
> > 2. They knew their premises would be inspected and didn't want to be
> > refused a new licence because (say) they knew they had unsafe electrical
> > wiring, indaequate fire exits, extinguishers, etc.
>
> > I have first-hand knowledge of how this happened, as amongst other 
> > things,
> > I'm secretary of our local village hall committee and was/still am the
> > licensee.
> > We passed the inspection with no problems and now reguarly put on 
> > discos,
> > dances, theatre performances - and yes, bands (of any size).
>
> > Contrarily, the ex-landlord of the pub in next village told me that he
> > didn't tick the live music box as he thought he might have to spend 
> > money
> > on upgrading his pub to meet current safety standards! Thus, his
> > occassional two-in-a-bar bands could no longer play there.
> > Since the pub changed hands, the present licensee applied for - and was
> > granted - a full music licence, and didn't after all need to do any
> > upgrades. The place is now thriving, with regular band performances and 
> > an
> > open-mic night every Monday.
>
> >> 'There would be no exceptions. A person playing a ukulele accompanied 
> >> by
> >> someone else on a triangle would be breaking the law if the act 
> >> appeared
> >> in a pub without the required license. There was no control, on the 
> >> other
> >> hand, over noise blaring from a large TV screen or from recorded music.
> >> 'This bafflingly silly piece of legislation, which punished musicians 
> >> and
> >> publicans, two professions that were already in difficulty, had the
> >> effect of causing many pubs to abandon live music. After a long 
> >> campaign,
> >> headed by the charity UK Music, sanity seemed to have broken through in
> >> May when a Commons Select Committee looking into the act concluded that
> >> music should not automatically be considered a disruptive activity. The
> >> 'draconian' law had discouraged performance, 'especially by young
> >> musicians'.
> >> 'The Government has just rejected the committee's recommendations. Ben
> >> Bradshaw has decreed that, when it comes to music's potential for
> >> stirring violence, the number of musicians or the size of audience is
> >> irrelevant. Clearly bored by the subject, the Department of Culture,
> >> Media and Sport has said that the subject is now closed.
> >> 'Could someone in government, in the ministry, in the police, explain 
> >> the
> >> thinking behind this idiocy? Surely even the most blinkered,
> >> legislation-addicted minister can see that it is not music which causes
> >> trouble when people are gathered together, but alcohol. It is asinine 
> >> to
> >> blame musicians for what is a general social problem.
> >> 'There has been extraordinarily little evidence to back up the
> >> Government's position - no sobering statistics about guitar riots, or
> >> chilling accounts of accordion-related violence. Feebly, a civil 
> >> servant
> >> has argued that, in spite of the Licensing Act, the venues putting on
> >> live music in the UK have increased since 2007.
> >> 'Of course they have. Surely, the news has reached Whitehall by now 
> >> that
> >> Britain is going through a musical renaissance. There has been a huge
> >> increase in the numbers of those who attend concerts and festivals. In 
> >> an
> >> age of control and corporatism, when so much of life and work is 
> >> mediated
> >> through screens, performed music is a defiant, and increasingly 
> >> powerful,
> >> expression of the individual human spirit.
> >> 'Could that, just possibly, be the problem? Is the reason why 
> >> politicians
> >> fear the kind of music which is not controlled by sponsors or huge
> >> marketing interests that it represents freedom? A government which 
> >> likes
> >> to boast of the country's "creative industries" is one which deals with
> >> life as if it were part of a big business. Everything must be licensed,
> >> controlled.
> >> 'There is a sad irony here for those who have voted Labour down the
> >> years. The last time there was an explosion of song-writing outside the
> >> power of record companies was some 45 years ago. At that time, a Labour
> >> government briefly had the courage to embrace musical performance as 
> >> part
> >> of a young and changing Britain.
> >> 'Today, those in charge are wary of unlicensed spontaneity. This absurd
> >> campaign against musicians, particularly young musicians, may not be 
> >> the
> >> most grievous act of this Government but it represents a spirit of
> >> petty-mindedness and fear which will cost it dearly over the next 12
> >> months.'
>
> > In all of this tirade, which is highly emotional and makes many
> > assumptions, the author failed to mention the Met Police's Form 696,
> > which, to my mind, *does* need to be scrapped.
> > For Londoners and those living in areas where their local police and
> > council have adopted it, licensees have to answer searching questions
> > about each gig, the band, the likely audience, etc, which in many cases
> > might be ruled as racist. Thankfully, our local police and council 
> > haven't
> > (yet) adopted this measure.
>
> > George
>
> If this wonderful legislation is so good why is so much
> time and effort being spent on trying to undo at least
> some of the damage it's done?
> As ever this bunch of control freaks are refusing to accept
> they got it wrong.
>
> Whether the hoops one is required to jump through
> to get a license are real or perceived the fact remains
> that so many venues did not apply for the music license
> previously not required (2 in a bar venues in many cases)
> that live music has been badly hit....that is without doubt.
> That assessment of the situation is essentially correct.
> Bad and totally unnecessary legislation that has
> killed many small live music venues yet encourages
> excessive drinking.
> Brilliant.
> -C-


I hardly think that current UK Government legislation can be said to
encourage binge-drinking.  According to recent reports, on average, 52
pubs closed their doors permanently each week of 2008.  The pubs that
have stayed open are usually those which have diversified into food.
Publicans are quoted as blaming the cost of drinking in a pub due to
the high duties compared to buying in an off-licence and consuming at
home, as well as the smoking ban.  I've noticed that every time I go
back home, more and more pubs are shuttered and up for sale.

What really worries me is that no-one seems to be addressing binge-
drinking as a symptom of some greater malaise affecting the public.

That's about the strength of it, Steve
There's also the problem of pub companies such as Punch Taverns, etc. buying 
out free-house pubs, putting in their own landlords and then tying them into 
buying their supplies from the company - at inflated prices. The pub in the 
next village to me has closed and re-opened about four times in the past 
year, as each landlord just can't make enough profit to make a living - even 
with serving food

I used to frequent my local about once a week (or more) but I haven't been 
in there for at least a couple of months.
Reasons:
1. Bad weather - go outside for a smoke - stand under umbrella in back yard 
and get cold and wet.
2. High pub prices. Bottle of whiskey in supermarket about fourteen quid. 
Price of a double shot in my local over a fiver. No-brainer...

I much prefer now to go out for a curry, have a pint or two with the meal 
and then go home for a few (cheap) whiskeys.

George

anything@contractorcom.com wrote:
<snip>
> 
> As a former publican I have taken an interest in this. There was a
> considerable amount of research published a few years ago about the
> behaviour of the Aryan (ie Danes, Saxons, Norwegian and Finnish)
> compared to the Latin, races (Spanish, French, Italians etc).

Hmmm... I think this is the first time I've seen Finns described as part 
of the Aryan race and rather than have the knee-jerk reaction due to the 
very negative association with the term, I think I would like to look 
that up. Have you got a reference for it?

Quick check from wikipedia (of course!) seems to suggest that the Aryan 
race consists of the speakers of Indo-European languages, which I think 
finnish is not.

 > Of course it's impossible to be specific, but to generalise, the
> conclusions people came to in various studies was that Northern
> European white people have a greater prediliction for drinking for
> it's own sake than do the Southern Europeans.
> 
> This may be genetic, or maybe it's becasue of the long winters when
> there's little to do except get smashed and wait for the sun to come
> out again.

I agree!

  -- Kari

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:15:01 +0100, "George Weston"
 wrote:

>
>"Sjfdix"  wrote in message 
>news:31d965da-e405-464c-933e-9d14194a8049@o32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>On Jul 24, 7:00 pm, "fourstring"  wrote:
>> "George Weston"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:7ctu02F290oteU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Nildram"  wrote in message
>> >news:ucmdnfjIItSrN_TXnZ2dnUVZ8iydnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>
>> >> "Adrian Legg"  wrote in message
>> >>news:9MidnSSvNoE86PjXnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> >>> The Government has rejected all three recommendations affecting music
>> >>> made in
>> >>> the Culture,
>> >>> Media and Sport Select Committee¹s report on the Licensing Act 2003.
>> >>> The
>> >>> report¹s main
>> >>> recommendations in terms of music were to scrap form 696, to introduce
>> >>> an
>> >>> exemption for venues of
>> >>> a capacity of below 200 and to reintroduce the two in a bar rule.
>>
>> >>> --
>>
>> >>> <http://www.adrianlegg.com/>
>> >>> <http://www.facebook.com/adrianlegg>
>>
>> >> The piece below sums up the crass stupidity inherent in Noo Laber.
>> >> I seem to remember trying to drum up support here to fight this bill
>> >> and got told basically to sod off as 'it is a good thing' for live 
>> >> music.
>> >> Well it ain't.
>>
>> >> Terence Blacker of the Independent has written the best article yet on
>> >> recent entertainment licensing developments:
>>
>> >> 'Where are the guitar riots and accordian assaults? Terence Blacker - 
>> >> The
>> >> Independent - Tuesday 21 July 2009
>> >> 'This Government has developed a bizarre hatred for a certain kind of
>> >> live music. Chilling with the kids at the Latitude Festival this 
>> >> weekend,
>> >> the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Ben Bradshaw, 
>> >> looked
>> >> extraordinarily relaxed for someone whose ministry had just dealt a
>> >> hammer blow to musical expression in the UK. Participating in a packed
>> >> debate about media, Bradshaw had been amiable, almost liberal, in his
>> >> views about Page Three girls and the celebrity culture.
>> >> 'It is music for which his Government has developed a bizarre, 
>> >> sustained
>> >> hatred - or, to be more accurate, a certain kind of music. There is no
>> >> problem with the big, moneyed, well-sponsored acts of the type 
>> >> performing
>> >> on the main stages of Latitude and other festivals. It is the kind of
>> >> acts found on the fringes of these events - small, scruffy, dangerously
>> >> individual and spontaneous - which seems to frighten ministers, and has
>> >> caused them to dump yet another mess of pointless legislation on to the
>> >> statute books.
>> >> 'Six years ago, the Blair Government decided, for reasons which were 
>> >> and
>> >> remain mysterious, that live music - that is, any music, acoustic or
>> >> amplified, played by one musician or more in a public place - causes a
>> >> threat to public order. It passed the Licensing Act, which required 
>> >> pubs
>> >> or clubs to fill out a complicated form and pay for a permit from the
>> >> local council.
>>
>> > Not strictly true.
>>
>> > All public premises (pubs, clubs, village halls etc.) had to apply for a
>> > new Premises Licence on inception of the new Act.
>>
>> > The new licence had only to be applied for once, as opposed to needing 
>> > to
>> > be renewed annually, which saved licensees money.
>>
>> > The new all-in-one licence could include sale of alcohol, live music,
>> > recorded music, singing, dancing, theatrical performances, whatever, and
>> > would replace their old Magistrates' Court Alcohol Licence and/or their
>> > Public Entertainments Licence (if they had one). Prior to the new Act,
>> > there was an anomaly whereby one or two musicians could play without the
>> > licensee needing to have a Public Entertainments Licence. This exception
>> > ended on the inception of the new Act.
>>
>> > However, some licensees (for whatever reason - see below) made the
>> > decision not to tick the "live music" box when they applied for their 
>> > new
>> > Premises Licence.
>> > It is only in premises such as these where one or two people are now
>> > barred from performing.
>>
>> > Possible reasons for licensees not ticking the "live music" box on the
>> > application form:
>> > 1. They had already received complaints from neighbours about noise and
>> > thought that they might be refused a licence.
>> > 2. They knew their premises would be inspected and didn't want to be
>> > refused a new licence because (say) they knew they had unsafe electrical
>> > wiring, indaequate fire exits, extinguishers, etc.
>>
>> > I have first-hand knowledge of how this happened, as amongst other 
>> > things,
>> > I'm secretary of our local village hall committee and was/still am the
>> > licensee.
>> > We passed the inspection with no problems and now reguarly put on 
>> > discos,
>> > dances, theatre performances - and yes, bands (of any size).
>>
>> > Contrarily, the ex-landlord of the pub in next village told me that he
>> > didn't tick the live music box as he thought he might have to spend 
>> > money
>> > on upgrading his pub to meet current safety standards! Thus, his
>> > occassional two-in-a-bar bands could no longer play there.
>> > Since the pub changed hands, the present licensee applied for - and was
>> > granted - a full music licence, and didn't after all need to do any
>> > upgrades. The place is now thriving, with regular band performances and 
>> > an
>> > open-mic night every Monday.
>>
>> >> 'There would be no exceptions. A person playing a ukulele accompanied 
>> >> by
>> >> someone else on a triangle would be breaking the law if the act 
>> >> appeared
>> >> in a pub without the required license. There was no control, on the 
>> >> other
>> >> hand, over noise blaring from a large TV screen or from recorded music.
>> >> 'This bafflingly silly piece of legislation, which punished musicians 
>> >> and
>> >> publicans, two professions that were already in difficulty, had the
>> >> effect of causing many pubs to abandon live music. After a long 
>> >> campaign,
>> >> headed by the charity UK Music, sanity seemed to have broken through in
>> >> May when a Commons Select Committee looking into the act concluded that
>> >> music should not automatically be considered a disruptive activity. The
>> >> 'draconian' law had discouraged performance, 'especially by young
>> >> musicians'.
>> >> 'The Government has just rejected the committee's recommendations. Ben
>> >> Bradshaw has decreed that, when it comes to music's potential for
>> >> stirring violence, the number of musicians or the size of audience is
>> >> irrelevant. Clearly bored by the subject, the Department of Culture,
>> >> Media and Sport has said that the subject is now closed.
>> >> 'Could someone in government, in the ministry, in the police, explain 
>> >> the
>> >> thinking behind this idiocy? Surely even the most blinkered,
>> >> legislation-addicted minister can see that it is not music which causes
>> >> trouble when people are gathered together, but alcohol. It is asinine 
>> >> to
>> >> blame musicians for what is a general social problem.
>> >> 'There has been extraordinarily little evidence to back up the
>> >> Government's position - no sobering statistics about guitar riots, or
>> >> chilling accounts of accordion-related violence. Feebly, a civil 
>> >> servant
>> >> has argued that, in spite of the Licensing Act, the venues putting on
>> >> live music in the UK have increased since 2007.
>> >> 'Of course they have. Surely, the news has reached Whitehall by now 
>> >> that
>> >> Britain is going through a musical renaissance. There has been a huge
>> >> increase in the numbers of those who attend concerts and festivals. In 
>> >> an
>> >> age of control and corporatism, when so much of life and work is 
>> >> mediated
>> >> through screens, performed music is a defiant, and increasingly 
>> >> powerful,
>> >> expression of the individual human spirit.
>> >> 'Could that, just possibly, be the problem? Is the reason why 
>> >> politicians
>> >> fear the kind of music which is not controlled by sponsors or huge
>> >> marketing interests that it represents freedom? A government which 
>> >> likes
>> >> to boast of the country's "creative industries" is one which deals with
>> >> life as if it were part of a big business. Everything must be licensed,
>> >> controlled.
>> >> 'There is a sad irony here for those who have voted Labour down the
>> >> years. The last time there was an explosion of song-writing outside the
>> >> power of record companies was some 45 years ago. At that time, a Labour
>> >> government briefly had the courage to embrace musical performance as 
>> >> part
>> >> of a young and changing Britain.
>> >> 'Today, those in charge are wary of unlicensed spontaneity. This absurd
>> >> campaign against musicians, particularly young musicians, may not be 
>> >> the
>> >> most grievous act of this Government but it represents a spirit of
>> >> petty-mindedness and fear which will cost it dearly over the next 12
>> >> months.'
>>
>> > In all of this tirade, which is highly emotional and makes many
>> > assumptions, the author failed to mention the Met Police's Form 696,
>> > which, to my mind, *does* need to be scrapped.
>> > For Londoners and those living in areas where their local police and
>> > council have adopted it, licensees have to answer searching questions
>> > about each gig, the band, the likely audience, etc, which in many cases
>> > might be ruled as racist. Thankfully, our local police and council 
>> > haven't
>> > (yet) adopted this measure.
>>
>> > George
>>
>> If this wonderful legislation is so good why is so much
>> time and effort being spent on trying to undo at least
>> some of the damage it's done?
>> As ever this bunch of control freaks are refusing to accept
>> they got it wrong.
>>
>> Whether the hoops one is required to jump through
>> to get a license are real or perceived the fact remains
>> that so many venues did not apply for the music license
>> previously not required (2 in a bar venues in many cases)
>> that live music has been badly hit....that is without doubt.
>> That assessment of the situation is essentially correct.
>> Bad and totally unnecessary legislation that has
>> killed many small live music venues yet encourages
>> excessive drinking.
>> Brilliant.
>> -C-
>
>
>I hardly think that current UK Government legislation can be said to
>encourage binge-drinking.  According to recent reports, on average, 52
>pubs closed their doors permanently each week of 2008.  The pubs that
>have stayed open are usually those which have diversified into food.
>Publicans are quoted as blaming the cost of drinking in a pub due to
>the high duties compared to buying in an off-licence and consuming at
>home, as well as the smoking ban.  I've noticed that every time I go
>back home, more and more pubs are shuttered and up for sale.
>
>What really worries me is that no-one seems to be addressing binge-
>drinking as a symptom of some greater malaise affecting the public.
>
>That's about the strength of it, Steve
>There's also the problem of pub companies such as Punch Taverns, etc. buying 
>out free-house pubs, putting in their own landlords and then tying them into 
>buying their supplies from the company - at inflated prices. The pub in the 
>next village to me has closed and re-opened about four times in the past 
>year, as each landlord just can't make enough profit to make a living - even 
>with serving food
>
>I used to frequent my local about once a week (or more) but I haven't been 
>in there for at least a couple of months.
>Reasons:
>1. Bad weather - go outside for a smoke - stand under umbrella in back yard 
>and get cold and wet.
>2. High pub prices. Bottle of whiskey in supermarket about fourteen quid. 
>Price of a double shot in my local over a fiver. No-brainer...
>
>I much prefer now to go out for a curry, have a pint or two with the meal 
>and then go home for a few (cheap) whiskeys.
>
>George
>
>
When they loosened up the drinking hours in Scotland a few years ago
it was in response to street violence in the hours immeditely after
the pubs and clubs closed. It was demonstrated very quickly that the
violence was indeed exacerbated by having lots of people (suddenly
drunk after the closing time rush) on the streets all at the same
time. This was having a worse effect than stopping people drinking any
more than the legislation (with it's time restrictions) allowed.

The result was a huge drop in drink-related crime, so the Westminster
govt. followed what seemed to be a conclusive social experiment and
loosened up the law here.

What people don't seem to understand is that we still don't have 24
hour licenses as of right in England and Wales. If you're a publican
you must apply for longer hours and justify them to the magistrates,
and if they don't think you can justify the hours you've applied for
then they will be refused. I had a 12pm closing time at my place,
simply because it meant that if I could trade for the extra hour after
11pm it would extend the 9pm drinker's time at the bar and thus
improve my takings.

Not that it made any differnce - there was a lock-in most nights
anyway..:-)

Pete

Kari wrote:
> anything@contractorcom.com wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> As a former publican I have taken an interest in this. There was a
>> considerable amount of research published a few years ago about the
>> behaviour of the Aryan (ie Danes, Saxons, Norwegian and Finnish)
>> compared to the Latin, races (Spanish, French, Italians etc).
> 
> Hmmm... I think this is the first time I've seen Finns described as part 
> of the Aryan race and rather than have the knee-jerk reaction due to the 
> very negative association with the term, I think I would like to look 
> that up. Have you got a reference for it?
> 
> Quick check from wikipedia (of course!) seems to suggest that the Aryan 
> race consists of the speakers of Indo-European languages, which I think 
> finnish is not.

"Northern European" is probably a better and safer term. Speaking a 
particular language is not a good indicator of genetic orgins. Robert Mugabe 
speaks English.

>  > Of course it's impossible to be specific, but to generalise, the
>> conclusions people came to in various studies was that Northern
>> European white people have a greater prediliction for drinking for
>> it's own sake than do the Southern Europeans.

>> This may be genetic, or maybe it's becasue of the long winters when
>> there's little to do except get smashed and wait for the sun to come
>> out again.
> 
> I agree!

The reason doesn't matter much, really. It's just the way it is.

I'm no great drinker, but my Italian friends notice that I knock back more of 
the vino rosso tipico than they do!

Sjfdix wrote:

> I hardly think that current UK Government legislation can be said to
> encourage binge-drinking.  According to recent reports, on average, 52
> pubs closed their doors permanently each week of 2008.  The pubs that
> have stayed open are usually those which have diversified into food.
> Publicans are quoted as blaming the cost of drinking in a pub due to
> the high duties compared to buying in an off-licence and consuming at
> home, as well as the smoking ban.

Is the duty on beer in pubs and supermarkets differently rated?

I've no reason to suppose that it is.

> I've noticed that every time I go
> back home, more and more pubs are shuttered and up for sale.

Nothing much to do with the duty levels, though. It's the cost of running a 
pub that's the problem. I'm just off to a jam night at the local - the only 
night of the week it does good business.

> What really worries me is that no-one seems to be addressing binge-
> drinking as a symptom of some greater malaise affecting the public.

The Soviet Union was the place for that.

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:27:30 +0100, JNugent
 wrote:

>Sjfdix wrote:
>
>> I hardly think that current UK Government legislation can be said to
>> encourage binge-drinking.  According to recent reports, on average, 52
>> pubs closed their doors permanently each week of 2008.  The pubs that
>> have stayed open are usually those which have diversified into food.
>> Publicans are quoted as blaming the cost of drinking in a pub due to
>> the high duties compared to buying in an off-licence and consuming at
>> home, as well as the smoking ban.
>
>Is the duty on beer in pubs and supermarkets differently rated?

Nope. You pay acording to the ABV of the product.
>
>I've no reason to suppose that it is.
>
>> I've noticed that every time I go
>> back home, more and more pubs are shuttered and up for sale.
>
>Nothing much to do with the duty levels, though. It's the cost of running a 
>pub that's the problem. I'm just off to a jam night at the local - the only 
>night of the week it does good business.

Absolutely right. You need to charge at least a 100% markup on
everything poured from a barrel, and if you're charging less than 200%
on spirits. Eg: 9 gallon 5% real ale - approx £90 - £100 a barrel.
Going rate for a premium real ale - say £2.75 outside London, so the
markup has to be about £1.50 a pint (ish - I can't be bothered to dig
out a calculator).

Spirits: At brewery prices, about £12 a bottle of ornery vodka. 32
shots x what? £2.20 - £2.30? - £69.00 minimum per bottle - a mark up
of £57.00.

Wine is usally the standard restaurant markup - 300%, which is why
some places offer you the rest of the bottle if you buy 2 large
glasses - they're getting a 100% markup minimum on the bottle anyway.

Spirits are good business, but when you take off rents, wages, and all
the rest of the gubbins you make no real money out of the beer at all.

Someone is going to ask "How, therefore can Weatherspoons sell beer at
£1.00 a pint?" What they do is 'phone round the breweries and tell
them they'll take ALL their short-dated beer - at 25% of the normal
wholesale price, so they're getting their beer at about 30p a pint, so
they're charging a 200% markup.

And that's why Weatherspoons beer is frequently piss poor..:-)

I have no problems at all with standard pub markups - the tenant is
usually getting little out of it except free food and lodging - and
unless he's really abstemious, free beer - but he's doing 17 hours a
day for it and when you tot up the cost of running a family for a year
that means he's doing it on about £20k a year for a 6 day, 104 hour
week.

Pete

>
>> What really worries me is that no-one seems to be addressing binge-
>> drinking as a symptom of some greater malaise affecting the public.
>
>The Soviet Union was the place for that.

"Sjfdix"  wrote in message 
news:31d965da-e405-464c-933e-9d14194a8049@o32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

>>What really worries me is that no-one seems to be addressing binge-
drinking as a symptom of some greater malaise affecting the public.<<

I know binge drinking was a part of my youth in the mid 60s but it was 
usually by accident rather than design and most grew out of it pretty soon 
after reaching legal drinking age, although a few did admit to only drinking 
to get drunk, not other social niceties such as getting 'merry'. The beer 
was also mostly of non-specific lowish ABV but anecdotally stronger in the 
'north'.

I remember travelling distance in the late 70s for a pint of 'Old Peculier' 
at circa 5% wihich was the strongest UK draught beer available at the time. 
Now 5% is on the medium side and very few pople drank or could afford 
spirits alone or as chasers. It's now much easier and relatively cheaper to 
get through fairly poisonous quantities of high ABV alcohol if you choose 
to. It's borne out by chronic alcohol fatalities aged in their early 20's 
which would have been nearly impossible to achieve in my youth.

There's also been a general increase in other forms of self-medication with 
other legal and illegal drugs. I don't think any of the 'make it more 
expensive' or 'make it less easily available' will work, but I would like to 
see those who habitually drink to incapacity, or cause trouble in that 
state, to be charged money for the public services they use to get them back 
to a passable state. I'm sure they think it's just like another of the 
emergency services always free and on demand, except the incidents aren't 
accidents or emergencies, just the result of willfully deliberate or 
reckless acts that shoudn't be given free redress when everyone has to cover 
the cost.

If the NHS wasn't free you'd receive an itemised bill for any treatment you 
recieved, so if a few bills and bailiffs became more of a consequence of 
binge drinking, or at least that to the regular state of incapacity or 
troublemaking, it might cause pause for thought. As it stands there's no 
real consequence apart from possibly being a victim of crime or 
misadventure-death, accidental or eventual.

icarusi
--

remove the 00 to reply

JNugent wrote:
> Kari wrote:
>> anything@contractorcom.com wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> As a former publican I have taken an interest in this. There was a
>>> considerable amount of research published a few years ago about the
>>> behaviour of the Aryan (ie Danes, Saxons, Norwegian and Finnish)
>>> compared to the Latin, races (Spanish, French, Italians etc).
>>
>> Hmmm... I think this is the first time I've seen Finns described as 
>> part of the Aryan race and rather than have the knee-jerk reaction due 
>> to the very negative association with the term, I think I would like 
>> to look that up. Have you got a reference for it?
>>
>> Quick check from wikipedia (of course!) seems to suggest that the 
>> Aryan race consists of the speakers of Indo-European languages, which 
>> I think finnish is not.
> 
> "Northern European" is probably a better and safer term. 

Yes.

> Speaking a 
> particular language is not a good indicator of genetic orgins. Robert 
> Mugabe speaks English.

Well I would say that it is a slightly better indicator for the genetic 
origin of Finns than it is for Robert Mugabe's. Finnish is a very small 
language and not related to its bigger geographical neighbours (Russian, 
Swedish, Norwegian), thereby suggesting a longer period of isolation.

Actually I don't know my genetic origins, it would be interesting to 
find out! :-)

  -- Kari

Kari wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Kari wrote:

>>> Hmmm... I think this is the first time I've seen Finns described as 
>>> part of the Aryan race and rather than have the knee-jerk reaction 
>>> due to the very negative association with the term, I think I would 
>>> like to look that up. Have you got a reference for it?
>>> Quick check from wikipedia (of course!) seems to suggest that the 
>>> Aryan race consists of the speakers of Indo-European languages, which 
>>> I think finnish is not.

>> "Northern European" is probably a better and safer term. 

> Yes.

>> Speaking a particular language is not a good indicator of genetic 
>> orgins. Robert Mugabe speaks English.

> Well I would say that it is a slightly better indicator for the genetic 
> origin of Finns than it is for Robert Mugabe's. Finnish is a very small 
> language and not related to its bigger geographical neighbours (Russian, 
> Swedish, Norwegian), thereby suggesting a longer period of isolation.

I'd still take some convincing that Finnish people are very different 
genetically from the people of the neighbouring countries (especially tyhe 
Russians).

> Actually I don't know my genetic origins, it would be interesting to 
> find out! :-)

I know mine (and they're 100% not British). It is likely that my ancestors 
further back than my great-great-grandparents spoke Gaelic rather than English.

On Jul 30, 9:33 am, JNugent  wrote:
> Kari wrote:
> > JNugent wrote:
> >> Kari wrote:
> >>> Hmmm... I think this is the first time I've seen Finns described as
> >>> part of the Aryan race and rather than have the knee-jerk reaction
> >>> due to the very negative association with the term, I think I would
> >>> like to look that up. Have you got a reference for it?
> >>> Quick check from wikipedia (of course!) seems to suggest that the
> >>> Aryan race consists of the speakers of Indo-European languages, which
> >>> I think finnish is not.
> >> "Northern European" is probably a better and safer term.
> > Yes.
> >> Speaking a particular language is not a good indicator of genetic
> >> orgins. Robert Mugabe speaks English.
> > Well I would say that it is a slightly better indicator for the genetic
> > origin of Finns than it is for Robert Mugabe's. Finnish is a very small
> > language and not related to its bigger geographical neighbours (Russian> > Swedish, Norwegian), thereby suggesting a longer period of isolation.
>
> I'd still take some convincing that Finnish people are very different
> genetically from the people of the neighbouring countries (especially tyhe
> Russians).
>
> > Actually I don't know my genetic origins, it would be interesting to
> > find out! :-)
>
> I know mine (and they're 100% not British). It is likely that my ancestors
> further back than my great-great-grandparents spoke Gaelic rather than English.

At least one section of mine definitely spoke Gaelic.  The other half
spoke Italian.  Very loudly, if my experiences of Sicilians are
anything to go by.

JNugent wrote:
> Kari wrote:
> 
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Kari wrote:
> 
>>>> Hmmm... I think this is the first time I've seen Finns described as 
>>>> part of the Aryan race and rather than have the knee-jerk reaction 
>>>> due to the very negative association with the term, I think I would 
>>>> like to look that up. Have you got a reference for it?
>>>> Quick check from wikipedia (of course!) seems to suggest that the 
>>>> Aryan race consists of the speakers of Indo-European languages, 
>>>> which I think finnish is not.
> 
>>> "Northern European" is probably a better and safer term. 
> 
>> Yes.
> 
>>> Speaking a particular language is not a good indicator of genetic 
>>> orgins. Robert Mugabe speaks English.
> 
>> Well I would say that it is a slightly better indicator for the 
>> genetic origin of Finns than it is for Robert Mugabe's. Finnish is a 
>> very small language and not related to its bigger geographical 
>> neighbours (Russian, Swedish, Norwegian), thereby suggesting a longer 
>> period of isolation.
> 
> I'd still take some convincing that Finnish people are very different 
> genetically from the people of the neighbouring countries (especially 
> tyhe Russians).

Of course, we are a mixture just like anyone else, but we are a little 
bit different to both Swedes and Russians. I once had a girlfriend who 
was from Karelia (south-eastern Finland) and she definitely looked more 
"russian" than an average finn. Gorgeous! (not that the blondes are bad 
either...)

But I thought your example of Robert Mugabe was poorly chosen. I'm 
pretty sure that I can go back many, many generations in my family and 
they still spoke finnish (someone did do a family tree thingy a few 
years back).

Whatever the native language of Mugabe's family is (because it surely 
isn't english), he probably has some level of a genetic link with people 
who speak the same language.

I'm finding it increasingly surreal that I'm talking about my language & 
genetics and a homicidal African dictator in the same post so I think 
I'll stop.

Where did this start from? Ah yes, I didn't like the linking of the term 
"Aryan race" and the Finns. I think we've cleared that up. Thank you and 
goodnight. Let's get back to talking about guitars.

Regards,
        Kari

On Jul 29, 10:37 pm, anyth...@contractorcom.com wrote:

> And that's why Weatherspoons beer is frequently piss poor..:-)

That's certainly not my experience with the quality of the beer...
apart from the proper CAMRA-listed pubs, I find they're one of the
best places for decent ale, certainly better than the "nice" family-
type free houses with their Greene King and Sunday roasts. In a lot of
towns, the local JDW is the only way people are going to learn about
their local breweries. Where they fail for me is in the variable
customer service, which was how I assumed they saved money...
employing hopeless students with no idea of how to run a bar.


adrian

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:36:08 -0700 (PDT), Adrian Clark wrote:

> Where they fail for me is in the variable
> customer service, which was how I assumed they saved money...
> employing hopeless students with no idea of how to run a bar.

The biggest problem in the local JD's here is that there aren't enough of
them behind the bar. The staff on duty work hard but some nights, when you
go to the bar, it might be a good idea to take a packed lunch.
Whether they have a recruiting problem, or whether it's deliberate, is open
to question.

"Peter McCormack"  wrote in message 
news:1snwekpl268kd$.d2nwloa8xjak$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:36:08 -0700 (PDT), Adrian Clark wrote:
>
>> Where they fail for me is in the variable
>> customer service, which was how I assumed they saved money...
>> employing hopeless students with no idea of how to run a bar.
>
> The biggest problem in the local JD's here is that there aren't enough of
> them behind the bar. The staff on duty work hard but some nights, when you
> go to the bar, it might be a good idea to take a packed lunch.
> Whether they have a recruiting problem, or whether it's deliberate, is 
> open
> to question.

Well, I can only report positive reactions to the JDWs around these parts 
(south Wales and south-west England).
Whenever Mrs W is successful in dragging me out on a shopping expedition we 
usually end up lunching in a Wetherspoons, which give good, quick service.
One ham, eggs and chips, one lasagne and two pints of Abbot, all for a 
tenner.
No complaints!
Must be a London problem, Adrian?

George

On Aug 4, 4:59 pm, "George Weston" 
wrote:

> Well, I can only report positive reactions to the JDWs around these parts
> (south Wales and south-west England).
> Whenever Mrs W is successful in dragging me out on a shopping expedition we
> usually end up lunching in a Wetherspoons, which give good, quick service> One ham, eggs and chips, one lasagne and two pints of Abbot, all for a
> tenner.
> No complaints!
> Must be a London problem, Adrian?

It's probably right down to a branch-by-branch level. I've never had
any problem with the food (I think their Tuesday night special offer
rump steak is better than most I've had for twice the price) but I
know other people would never dream of eating in their local branches.
And the beer is usually well-kept and supporting local breweries (all
three Horsham breweries and Westerham were represented among the guest
ales last night). The problem with both of our JDWs is always the very
variable quality of the staff... maybe a training issue?


adrian