The MU has been celebrating with supportive MPs and other members of UK Music as the Live Music Bill passed its final stages in the Commons on Friday.
The Bill states that an exemption to the Licensing Act should take place when ‘the live music entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience of no more than 200 persons’. This will reduce the bureaucracy and expense for small venues wishing to put on live music.
We have been lobbying for a change of this kind ever since the Licensing Act came into law in 2003, and we believe that this Bill will be a real boost to live music performance.
John Smith, MU General Secretary, says:
“We are delighted that the Live Music Bill has finally made it through Parliament. It is a real achievement for a Private Member’s Bill to get through and the MU would like to thank Lord Clement Jones, Don Foster and all of the other MPs who helped to pass this Bill.
“Over the past few years our members have been telling us that the number of gigs available to young musicians who are still perfecting their craft has gone down. This is primarily due to a reduction in the number of smaller venues which traditionally offered this level of gig, and is directly linked to the Licensing Act. The exemption that the Live Music Bill introduces will be hugely beneficial to these small venues.”
I mean Section 155 (1) of The Licensing Act, 2003 - not the Live Music Bill, which is only concerned with amending law applicable to England and Wales.
I added the "UK" so that people elsewhere in the world could choose to ignore, or read. On the other hand, threats to live music should be of interest to all of us.
Would "English & Welsh Live Music Bill" put off the Scottish contingent?
The Act is obviously poorly thought out in places, and the bit that this Bill is concerned with is a piece of sheight, but sometimes I get the impression that certain people think they've just abolished slavery.
Good news. But counting punters to see if there are 199 or 201of them would do my head in, as would trying to confiscate alcohol from Northern Irish of any age or description.
Of course, if you're an MP you leave these details to the minions .
I haven't looked at the detail of the bill at all myself but I would imagine it is assessed based on the determined capacity of the venue rather than the numbers for any individual gig.
"I haven't looked at the detail of the bill at all myself but I would imagine it is assessed based on the determined capacity of the venue rather than the numbers for any individual gig."
On the contrary. The original Act states (Section 177,1 ,b, ii) [exemptions]:
[the premises—]
"have a permitted capacity of not more than 200 persons."
But the Bill amends that to:
[either—
(i) the live music is unamplified, or]
"the live music is amplified and takes place in the
presence of an audience of no more than 200 persons"...
This is indeed great news for the owners of pubs that support live music sessions - and also great news for the folks (often volunteers) who administer village halls etc., and have had to deal with the pointless beauracy created by the 2003 legislation.
But what about local residents living close to ampified music events (often held in the open air)? The amplification that is commonly used for an audience of > 200 at such events is often excessively loud.
What was REALLY needed was the repeal of the 2003 legislation in its entirety, and new legislation to deal effectively with noise nuisance caused by ANY event - be it large or small.
"I thought there was already seperate legislation to deal with noise nuisance".
Well, there is - but it's not efffective, as it's not really enforced. At least, not in my area.
Besides, there seems to be a general preception (in my local authority area) that if a music event is licenced, it must be OK.
Of course, it's money and big business that runs these big events, and either the L.A. are powerless to interfere, or maybe they don't want to. Probably down to plain brown envelopes ...
>"I thought there was already seperate legislation to deal with noise nuisance".<
Of course there is and it is this raft of existing anti-noise legislation that LAs should be using to deal with any form of noise pollution and which makes possible, this small but welcome relaxation in ADDITIONAL Entertainment Licensing permission. This is only a start...........
There is for example special noise legislation measures which automatically kick-in at 11pm.
HOWEVER, even after the Live Music Bill and on the grounds of (only potential noise) - non-amplified sessions will still be subject to the full requirement for ADDITIONAL Entertainment permission, automatically on the stroke of 11pm!!!
Without obtaining this permission, any session which extends after 11pm (even in pubs which remain open to serve alcohol to much later) will be illegal and will render the licensee (and possibly the session organiser/leader) liable to a max of 6 months in prison or a £20,000 fine.
There is still a long way to go.......but please do not perpetuate the myth that ADDITIONAL Entertainment Licensing - often required in advance of a note of music being sounded - can be any use in dealing with noise pollution.
The use of thismeasure can only continue to needlessly prevent and limit live music, and especially non-amplified sessions, when these activities in practice present no measureable noise pollution.
There is a false impression given here is that the Live Music Bill reflects the efforts of the MU.
For a long time the MU did nothing effective, and indeed what they did do tended to undermined the case for reform. The following article is informative.
>>The Musicians’ Union has been accused of failing to protect its own members after it turned down a motion, signed by more than 100 performers, calling on it to take a stand against the government’s Licensing Act.<<
What better day than Mozart's birthday for the conclusion of Parliamentary debate on the Live Music Bill.
The two minor amendments agreed in Commons Committee were ratified in
the House of Lords. We now await dates for Royal Assent and implementation.
Speaking to the amendments, Lord Clement-Jones offered his own 'Brit
Awards' to those organisations and individuals who had helped him make
the Bill a success. Lord Colwyn added his thanks and congratulations.
Both expressed the hope that the Bill would be enacted in time for the
Queen's Jubilee and Olympics.
Lord Clement-Jones added: 'At that time there will be suitable
celebrations and performances, I hope, in pubs and clubs up and down the
land.'
Baroness Rawlings responded: 'My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I
would like to add my thanks and congratulations to my noble friend Lord
Clement-Jones on his persistence and for having successfully steered
through this very worthwhile Bill. Regarding the Olympics and Her
Majesty the Queen's Jubilee, it would seem appropriate. I will, of
course, take the wishes of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones back to
the DCMS.'
Good news but........
Any session now which extends past 11pm in a venue without ADDITIONAL entertainment permission in place - will be illegal and render the licensee (and possibly the session's organiser) liable to a max of 6 months in prison or a £20,000 fine.
This is required on the grounds of preventing noise - and applies even where the music is non-amplified and despite the fact that special anti-noise measures already kick-in at 11pm.
"Both expressed the hope that the Bill would be enacted in time for the Queen's Jubilee and Olympics..."
Is there a way of getting the entire piping corps of the British Army recorded biting on the tails of all the Royal corgis etc., so as to drown out the urgent gruntings of televised flying pharmacies dashing themselves on obstacles like hormonal salmon as they visibly shorten their lives on the way to short-lived glory or long-lived disgrace, allegedly for our moral betterment?
I Think the reference to the Jubilee etc. was simply a message to get the LMB into the legislation ASAP.
With the Live Music Bill, there has been some move in the legislation back to before when Alcohol and Entertainment were linked together and required the same licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (the Act).
For the LMB has once again secured some sensible safeguards for small-scale live music, which were lost under the Act.
It has obtained these for venues which would not normally serve alcohol, when such safeguards as there were previous to the Act, like the 'two-in-a-bar rule' were confined to pubs etc.
Sessions were not exempt:
But we now have a new situation which was not previously an issue for live music, as venues licensed for alcohol were all mainly closed around 11.30pm, unless permission (usually in the form of additional licensing permission) was obtain to enable later closing times.
We have the situation where pub & clubs can now serve alcohol until much later than 11pm but where additional entertainment licensing must be obtained in order for live music to continue past 11pm.
Sessions are not exempt
With the Live Music Bill in place, should any session which is taking place in any venue without additional entertainment licensing in place, extend past 11pm - the activity will become illegal at this point and the licensee (and possibly the session's organiser) will be liable for the Max of 6 Months in prison or a £20,000 fine.
This 11pm curfew is said to be required on the grounds of preventing noise - and automatically applies even where the music is non-amplified and despite the fact that special anti-noise measures already kick-in at 11pm and before a note of music has been sounded to establish if the live music is a noise pollution concern or not.
Sessions are not exempt.
The irony is that the Govt's support for the LMB (the reason it passed) was conditional on this 11pm curfew being set in the LMB but when the consultation for the Govt's own proposal contain a very good argument against the introduction of such a set time.
As the main argument against continued additional entertainment licensing is that it is now duplication of issues already covered by other existing legislation - it seems that this set curfew when additional entertainment will automatically kick in, is already covered and again is duplication of issues that are already covered.
The MU, in refusing calls from their membership to publicly oppose the main issue for their members which is contained in Licensing Act 2003 - are supporting the 'spurious' basic premise on which the requirement for the Act's remaining additional entertainment licensing permission is based.
This premise is that, in advance of a note of music being sounded, live music and musicians will automatically present concerns which existing planning, environmental, health, safety and other legislation is inadequate to deal with and which only additional entertainment licensing permission is adequate to deal with.
Sessions are not exempt.
Any remaining supporters of the expensive additional entertainment permission measures contained in the Licensing Act 2003, need to finally inform us of exactly what the concerns are, which only this additional entertainment licensing permission is adequate to deal with, why this other existing legislation is inadequate and why this cannot be made fit for purpose?
Until and unless they can convince us of this, perhaps the poor old and long-suffering scapegoat - that is live music and musicians - can finally be set free?
Sessions are not exempt.
The DCMS now have the results of the latest of many such consultations and perhaps will be either prepared to try and convince us or be brave enough to finally bury the concept on which additional entertainment licensing permission (for every occasion) is based.
There comes a time when the stabilising wheels on a child's bicycle have served their purpose and where retaining them can only impede forward progress. At this point, these wheels can safely be removed. This is the point that the use of additional entertainment licensing permission (for all occasions) has now reached.
Sessions are not exempt but with licensing and other pressures on the few remaining pubs suitable and willing to host sessions and these pubs still closing in numbers every week - sessions should be made so - as a matter of some urgency.
>>Tourism and heritage minister John Penrose said: “This is just one step in what I hope will be a much larger process of removing burdens across all forms of regulated entertainment, allowing greater opportunities for community groups, schools and small businesses to put on low risk events, increase revenues, and raise money for good causes.
"Following our public consultation on this I hope to set out how we might take this forward in the next few months.”<<
This is either good news for live music and sessions or Mr Penrose is saying that is as far as the de-regulation of live music and sessions - 'that is your lot mate' - as the Govt's own proposals will only be dealing with the deregulation of all other forms of entertainment, except live music and sessions.
The formidible opposition to the Govt's own proposals (as far as those for live music) can be seen here in the Local Government Association's response to the DMCS consultation.
UK Live Music Bill
UK Live Music Bill
From the Musicians Union:
The MU has been celebrating with supportive MPs and other members of UK Music as the Live Music Bill passed its final stages in the Commons on Friday.
The Bill states that an exemption to the Licensing Act should take place when ‘the live music entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience of no more than 200 persons’. This will reduce the bureaucracy and expense for small venues wishing to put on live music.
We have been lobbying for a change of this kind ever since the Licensing Act came into law in 2003, and we believe that this Bill will be a real boost to live music performance.
John Smith, MU General Secretary, says:
“We are delighted that the Live Music Bill has finally made it through Parliament. It is a real achievement for a Private Member’s Bill to get through and the MU would like to thank Lord Clement Jones, Don Foster and all of the other MPs who helped to pass this Bill.
“Over the past few years our members have been telling us that the number of gigs available to young musicians who are still perfecting their craft has gone down. This is primarily due to a reduction in the number of smaller venues which traditionally offered this level of gig, and is directly linked to the Licensing Act. The exemption that the Live Music Bill introduces will be hugely beneficial to these small venues.”
# Posted on January 23rd 2012 by nigelg
Re: UK Live Music Bill
Thats a little spot of good news for a change. Thanks for posting Nigel.
# Posted on January 23rd 2012 by Solidmahog
Re: UK Live Music Bill
Some more information,
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/livemusichl.html
# Posted on January 23rd 2012 by SmashTheWindows
Re: UK Live Music Bill
That's one good thing this utterly useless gaggle of c*ts in this government has done. Otherwise, a bunch of f*ckwits.
# Posted on January 23rd 2012 by DrSilverSpear
Re: UK Live Music Bill
WHEW! Sigh... At least something has moved slightly to the positive...
# Posted on January 23rd 2012 by ceolachan
Silver, you give geese a bad name through association. There must be a better collective noun for as*holes...
# Posted on January 23rd 2012 by ceolachan
Re: UK Live Music Bill
What makes you think it is something the UK Gov't has done? It is nothing to do with them. It was a Private Member's Bill.
# Posted on January 23rd 2012 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: UK Live Music Bill
You don't know much about the workings of Parliament, do you, NCfA?
# Posted on January 23rd 2012 by MacCruiskeen
Re: UK Live Music Bill
It is just possible that you may eat your words on this one, Geoff.
# Posted on January 23rd 2012 by ethical blend
Re: UK Live Music Bill
What's this "UK Live Music Bill"?
It's a Bill to amend an Act that's only applicable to England and Wales.
# Posted on January 24th 2012 by Weejie
Re: UK Live Music Bill
Hahaha.
# Posted on January 24th 2012 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: UK Live Music Bill
(Sorry I was laughing at MacCruiskeen, Weejie, not you.)
# Posted on January 24th 2012 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: UK Live Music Bill
Or rather, I should say at his comment.
# Posted on January 24th 2012 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: UK Live Music Bill
Well, Section 155 (1) applies to Northern Ireland (amending the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 - slightly).
# Posted on January 24th 2012 by Weejie
Re: UK Live Music Bill
I mean Section 155 (1) of The Licensing Act, 2003 - not the Live Music Bill, which is only concerned with amending law applicable to England and Wales.
# Posted on January 24th 2012 by Weejie
Re: UK Live Music Bill
I added the "UK" so that people elsewhere in the world could choose to ignore, or read. On the other hand, threats to live music should be of interest to all of us.
# Posted on January 24th 2012 by nigelg
Re: UK Live Music Bill
Would "English & Welsh Live Music Bill" put off the Scottish contingent?
The Act is obviously poorly thought out in places, and the bit that this Bill is concerned with is a piece of sheight, but sometimes I get the impression that certain people think they've just abolished slavery.
# Posted on January 24th 2012 by Weejie
Re: UK Live Music Bill
Good news. But counting punters to see if there are 199 or 201of them would do my head in, as would trying to confiscate alcohol from Northern Irish of any age or description.
.
Of course, if you're an MP you leave these details to the minions
# Posted on January 24th 2012 by nicholas
Re: UK Live Music Bill
I haven't looked at the detail of the bill at all myself but I would imagine it is assessed based on the determined capacity of the venue rather than the numbers for any individual gig.
# Posted on January 24th 2012 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: UK Live Music Bill
"I haven't looked at the detail of the bill at all myself but I would imagine it is assessed based on the determined capacity of the venue rather than the numbers for any individual gig."
On the contrary. The original Act states (Section 177,1 ,b, ii) [exemptions]:
[the premises—]
"have a permitted capacity of not more than 200 persons."
But the Bill amends that to:
[either—
(i) the live music is unamplified, or]
"the live music is amplified and takes place in the
presence of an audience of no more than 200 persons"...
So, a bit of counting might need to be done.
# Posted on January 24th 2012 by Weejie
Re: UK Live Music Bill
"trying to confiscate alcohol from Northern Irish of any age or description"
Shame on you, nicholas.
I know you were just making a small joke, but come on--as if Norn Iron has the market cornered, on alcoholism....
# Posted on January 24th 2012 by John Galt
Re: UK Live Music Bill
Indeed. As if Nicholas hasn't witnessed the carnage on North Rd. in Durham on a Saturday night.....
# Posted on January 24th 2012 by DrSilverSpear
Re: UK Live Music Bill
This is indeed great news for the owners of pubs that support live music sessions - and also great news for the folks (often volunteers) who administer village halls etc., and have had to deal with the pointless beauracy created by the 2003 legislation.
But what about local residents living close to ampified music events (often held in the open air)? The amplification that is commonly used for an audience of > 200 at such events is often excessively loud.
What was REALLY needed was the repeal of the 2003 legislation in its entirety, and new legislation to deal effectively with noise nuisance caused by ANY event - be it large or small.
# Posted on January 24th 2012 by Mix O'Lydian
Re: UK Live Music Bill
I thought there was already seperate legislation to deal with noise nuisance, and that was one of the arguments for these amendments?
I'm sure local government's nannies will tell us if we accidentally have 201 people. They like easy targets
# Posted on January 24th 2012 by greg sheils
Re: UK Live Music Bill
"I thought there was already seperate legislation to deal with noise nuisance".
Well, there is - but it's not efffective, as it's not really enforced. At least, not in my area.
Besides, there seems to be a general preception (in my local authority area) that if a music event is licenced, it must be OK.
Of course, it's money and big business that runs these big events, and either the L.A. are powerless to interfere, or maybe they don't want to. Probably down to plain brown envelopes ...
# Posted on January 24th 2012 by Mix O'Lydian
Re: UK Live Music Bill
>"I thought there was already seperate legislation to deal with noise nuisance".<
Of course there is and it is this raft of existing anti-noise legislation that LAs should be using to deal with any form of noise pollution and which makes possible, this small but welcome relaxation in ADDITIONAL Entertainment Licensing permission. This is only a start...........
There is for example special noise legislation measures which automatically kick-in at 11pm.
HOWEVER, even after the Live Music Bill and on the grounds of (only potential noise) - non-amplified sessions will still be subject to the full requirement for ADDITIONAL Entertainment permission, automatically on the stroke of 11pm!!!
Without obtaining this permission, any session which extends after 11pm (even in pubs which remain open to serve alcohol to much later) will be illegal and will render the licensee (and possibly the session organiser/leader) liable to a max of 6 months in prison or a £20,000 fine.
There is still a long way to go.......but please do not perpetuate the myth that ADDITIONAL Entertainment Licensing - often required in advance of a note of music being sounded - can be any use in dealing with noise pollution.
The use of thismeasure can only continue to needlessly prevent and limit live music, and especially non-amplified sessions, when these activities in practice present no measureable noise pollution.
# Posted on January 28th 2012 by Roger Gall
Re: UK Live Music Bill
There is a false impression given here is that the Live Music Bill reflects the efforts of the MU.
For a long time the MU did nothing effective, and indeed what they did do tended to undermined the case for reform. The following article is informative.
http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/14184/mu-criticised-for-refusing-to-challenge
>>The Musicians’ Union has been accused of failing to protect its own members after it turned down a motion, signed by more than 100 performers, calling on it to take a stand against the government’s Licensing Act.<<
# Posted on January 28th 2012 by Roger Gall
Live Music Bill - latest
The following from Hamish Birchall
What better day than Mozart's birthday for the conclusion of Parliamentary debate on the Live Music Bill.
The two minor amendments agreed in Commons Committee were ratified in
the House of Lords. We now await dates for Royal Assent and implementation.
Speaking to the amendments, Lord Clement-Jones offered his own 'Brit
Awards' to those organisations and individuals who had helped him make
the Bill a success. Lord Colwyn added his thanks and congratulations.
Both expressed the hope that the Bill would be enacted in time for the
Queen's Jubilee and Olympics.
Lord Clement-Jones added: 'At that time there will be suitable
celebrations and performances, I hope, in pubs and clubs up and down the
land.'
Baroness Rawlings responded: 'My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I
would like to add my thanks and congratulations to my noble friend Lord
Clement-Jones on his persistence and for having successfully steered
through this very worthwhile Bill. Regarding the Olympics and Her
Majesty the Queen's Jubilee, it would seem appropriate. I will, of
course, take the wishes of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones back to
the DCMS.'
Watch on Parliament tv here (it only lasts a few minutes):
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9923
Read in Hansard:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/l_01.htm#d2e25
ENDS
Good news but........
Any session now which extends past 11pm in a venue without ADDITIONAL entertainment permission in place - will be illegal and render the licensee (and possibly the session's organiser) liable to a max of 6 months in prison or a £20,000 fine.
This is required on the grounds of preventing noise - and applies even where the music is non-amplified and despite the fact that special anti-noise measures already kick-in at 11pm.
# Posted on January 28th 2012 by Roger Gall
Re: Live Music Bill - latest
"Both expressed the hope that the Bill would be enacted in time for the Queen's Jubilee and Olympics..."
Is there a way of getting the entire piping corps of the British Army recorded biting on the tails of all the Royal corgis etc., so as to drown out the urgent gruntings of televised flying pharmacies dashing themselves on obstacles like hormonal salmon as they visibly shorten their lives on the way to short-lived glory or long-lived disgrace, allegedly for our moral betterment?
# Posted on January 28th 2012 by nicholas
Re: UK Live Music Bill
I Think the reference to the Jubilee etc. was simply a message to get the LMB into the legislation ASAP.
With the Live Music Bill, there has been some move in the legislation back to before when Alcohol and Entertainment were linked together and required the same licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (the Act).
For the LMB has once again secured some sensible safeguards for small-scale live music, which were lost under the Act.
It has obtained these for venues which would not normally serve alcohol, when such safeguards as there were previous to the Act, like the 'two-in-a-bar rule' were confined to pubs etc.
Sessions were not exempt:
But we now have a new situation which was not previously an issue for live music, as venues licensed for alcohol were all mainly closed around 11.30pm, unless permission (usually in the form of additional licensing permission) was obtain to enable later closing times.
We have the situation where pub & clubs can now serve alcohol until much later than 11pm but where additional entertainment licensing must be obtained in order for live music to continue past 11pm.
Sessions are not exempt
With the Live Music Bill in place, should any session which is taking place in any venue without additional entertainment licensing in place, extend past 11pm - the activity will become illegal at this point and the licensee (and possibly the session's organiser) will be liable for the Max of 6 Months in prison or a £20,000 fine.
This 11pm curfew is said to be required on the grounds of preventing noise - and automatically applies even where the music is non-amplified and despite the fact that special anti-noise measures already kick-in at 11pm and before a note of music has been sounded to establish if the live music is a noise pollution concern or not.
Sessions are not exempt.
The irony is that the Govt's support for the LMB (the reason it passed) was conditional on this 11pm curfew being set in the LMB but when the consultation for the Govt's own proposal contain a very good argument against the introduction of such a set time.
As the main argument against continued additional entertainment licensing is that it is now duplication of issues already covered by other existing legislation - it seems that this set curfew when additional entertainment will automatically kick in, is already covered and again is duplication of issues that are already covered.
The MU, in refusing calls from their membership to publicly oppose the main issue for their members which is contained in Licensing Act 2003 - are supporting the 'spurious' basic premise on which the requirement for the Act's remaining additional entertainment licensing permission is based.
This premise is that, in advance of a note of music being sounded, live music and musicians will automatically present concerns which existing planning, environmental, health, safety and other legislation is inadequate to deal with and which only additional entertainment licensing permission is adequate to deal with.
Sessions are not exempt.
Any remaining supporters of the expensive additional entertainment permission measures contained in the Licensing Act 2003, need to finally inform us of exactly what the concerns are, which only this additional entertainment licensing permission is adequate to deal with, why this other existing legislation is inadequate and why this cannot be made fit for purpose?
Until and unless they can convince us of this, perhaps the poor old and long-suffering scapegoat - that is live music and musicians - can finally be set free?
Sessions are not exempt.
The DCMS now have the results of the latest of many such consultations and perhaps will be either prepared to try and convince us or be brave enough to finally bury the concept on which additional entertainment licensing permission (for every occasion) is based.
There comes a time when the stabilising wheels on a child's bicycle have served their purpose and where retaining them can only impede forward progress. At this point, these wheels can safely be removed. This is the point that the use of additional entertainment licensing permission (for all occasions) has now reached.
Sessions are not exempt but with licensing and other pressures on the few remaining pubs suitable and willing to host sessions and these pubs still closing in numbers every week - sessions should be made so - as a matter of some urgency.
# Posted on January 29th 2012 by Roger Gall
Re: UK Live Music Bill
I think what Roger was trying to say is "Sessions are not exempt."
# Posted on January 29th 2012 by SmashTheWindows
Re: UK Live Music Bill
http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/General-News/Live-music-regulations-set-to-become-law
>>Tourism and heritage minister John Penrose said: “This is just one step in what I hope will be a much larger process of removing burdens across all forms of regulated entertainment, allowing greater opportunities for community groups, schools and small businesses to put on low risk events, increase revenues, and raise money for good causes.
"Following our public consultation on this I hope to set out how we might take this forward in the next few months.”<<
This is either good news for live music and sessions or Mr Penrose is saying that is as far as the de-regulation of live music and sessions - 'that is your lot mate' - as the Govt's own proposals will only be dealing with the deregulation of all other forms of entertainment, except live music and sessions.
# Posted on January 30th 2012 by Roger Gall
Re: UK Live Music Bill
The formidible opposition to the Govt's own proposals (as far as those for live music) can be seen here in the Local Government Association's response to the DMCS consultation.
http://www.local.gov.uk/web/10161/legislation/-/journal_content/56/10161/3168126/ARTICLE-TEMPLATE
# Posted on January 30th 2012 by Roger Gall
Re: UK Live Music Bill
I'd slow down a wee bit, Roger. You might be seen as a vexatious litigant.
# Posted on January 30th 2012 by Weejie