Abolish Theatre Licences

Why are Theatre licences necessary?

This is not Eastern Europe under Stalin, or England under Elizabeth the First. "Apply for a licence so we can control what you say and monitor it".

If content is not state-regulated and state-monitored that only leaves impact on neighbours and health and safety as legitimate reasons for control, both areas that also need simplification.

Why is this idea important?

Why are Theatre licences necessary?

This is not Eastern Europe under Stalin, or England under Elizabeth the First. "Apply for a licence so we can control what you say and monitor it".

If content is not state-regulated and state-monitored that only leaves impact on neighbours and health and safety as legitimate reasons for control, both areas that also need simplification.

Full emancipation of Roman Catholics

There are a wide range of historical leftovers in our society and laws at every level relating back to penal times against Roman Catholics. While most are dormant they irritate. They range from arcane rules against heraldry for Catholic bishops to who the sovereign can marry. I think also much nonsense is generated on the subject so I would like to see a thorough review exercise of just what still lies on the statute books.

Why is this idea important?

There are a wide range of historical leftovers in our society and laws at every level relating back to penal times against Roman Catholics. While most are dormant they irritate. They range from arcane rules against heraldry for Catholic bishops to who the sovereign can marry. I think also much nonsense is generated on the subject so I would like to see a thorough review exercise of just what still lies on the statute books.

Freedom Of Information Act – and Freedom

The freedom of information act has been abused and can be proven so:

These three separate documents unequivocally prove that information has been withheld from a biased point of view.  Any other subject matter and this would have been headline news, but, for some reason, it didn't.

On the 9th July 2010, the freedom of information act finally relented and gave up this piece of damning evidence against the drug classification system, it vindicates Professor Nutt entirely.  Not to mention, it makes a mockery of the governance of the day.  The full document pdf can be found here:

http://www.drugequality.org/ico_press_release.htm

 

In 2007, the FOI vetted this document so as "to avoid a focus on the gaps in the evidence base" and cited the group Transform specifically.  This is against the rules of the FOI act, no biased is allowed to a party wishing to view a document.  Once more, the full story and document  PDF can be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/06/home_office_error_reveals_how_foi_request_handled.html

 

And finally, this piece of information was withheld from the public for 9 months and was "slipped through" with the Mephadrone ban.  The document called "pathways to problems" is a report from the ACMD .  The document is a highly critical of the way alcohol is handled in the UK, once more, it has received little attention and the recommendations were not heeded.  The story can be found here:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/critical-alcohol-review-hidden-by-mephedrone-row-1948191.html

I would like the Freedom Of Information act to do as it says, allow freedom without bias or partisan ethics.

Why is this idea important?

The freedom of information act has been abused and can be proven so:

These three separate documents unequivocally prove that information has been withheld from a biased point of view.  Any other subject matter and this would have been headline news, but, for some reason, it didn't.

On the 9th July 2010, the freedom of information act finally relented and gave up this piece of damning evidence against the drug classification system, it vindicates Professor Nutt entirely.  Not to mention, it makes a mockery of the governance of the day.  The full document pdf can be found here:

http://www.drugequality.org/ico_press_release.htm

 

In 2007, the FOI vetted this document so as "to avoid a focus on the gaps in the evidence base" and cited the group Transform specifically.  This is against the rules of the FOI act, no biased is allowed to a party wishing to view a document.  Once more, the full story and document  PDF can be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/06/home_office_error_reveals_how_foi_request_handled.html

 

And finally, this piece of information was withheld from the public for 9 months and was "slipped through" with the Mephadrone ban.  The document called "pathways to problems" is a report from the ACMD .  The document is a highly critical of the way alcohol is handled in the UK, once more, it has received little attention and the recommendations were not heeded.  The story can be found here:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/critical-alcohol-review-hidden-by-mephedrone-row-1948191.html

I would like the Freedom Of Information act to do as it says, allow freedom without bias or partisan ethics.

Repeal H&S Law Banning 2-in-a-bar Pub Entertainment

In about 1999 Labour enacted a new Health & Safety law.

Until then any pub could stage occasional enertainment with 1 or 2 entertainers with no paperwork whatsoever, under the "2 in a bar" rule.

Many pubs used this for folk singers or kareoke. Some had aspiring stand up comics. Some had talent nights. A few even had one stripper once or twice a week. For many pubs this was an essential lifeline when finances were tight. It was easy, there were no complex forms or assessments, no licencing hearings, fees or delays.

Then Labour introduced compulsory Health & Safety assessments, even for one stand up comic appearing for an hour twice a year. The cost of expert assesments could easy be the cost of a barman/woman's wages for a year. And that was without expensive H&S adaptations in case the perfectly ordinary pub suddenly became unsafe. Measures seen as appropriate for crowded pubs with off-West End theates upstairs and audiences of 100s packed into small spaces were applied equally to rural pubs with 10 customers and 3 exits.

Result? Overnight closure of many small struggling pubs including my favourite, The Fort.

This is H&S overkill. And anyone who says won't it being back strippers, I say they were in most towns until then, and had been for at least 20 years, on an occasional discreet basis. By all means have licencing for all-day 7-day-a-week establishments that don't do anything else, but this ban closed struggling community pubs. It destroyed a financial safety valve, diversity, and directly lead to concentration of all-day 7-day-a-week establishments specialising in pole dancers because only the big operators could afford the operating costs. And that concentration is not a good thing for custoers, neighbours or dancers.

Why is this idea important?

In about 1999 Labour enacted a new Health & Safety law.

Until then any pub could stage occasional enertainment with 1 or 2 entertainers with no paperwork whatsoever, under the "2 in a bar" rule.

Many pubs used this for folk singers or kareoke. Some had aspiring stand up comics. Some had talent nights. A few even had one stripper once or twice a week. For many pubs this was an essential lifeline when finances were tight. It was easy, there were no complex forms or assessments, no licencing hearings, fees or delays.

Then Labour introduced compulsory Health & Safety assessments, even for one stand up comic appearing for an hour twice a year. The cost of expert assesments could easy be the cost of a barman/woman's wages for a year. And that was without expensive H&S adaptations in case the perfectly ordinary pub suddenly became unsafe. Measures seen as appropriate for crowded pubs with off-West End theates upstairs and audiences of 100s packed into small spaces were applied equally to rural pubs with 10 customers and 3 exits.

Result? Overnight closure of many small struggling pubs including my favourite, The Fort.

This is H&S overkill. And anyone who says won't it being back strippers, I say they were in most towns until then, and had been for at least 20 years, on an occasional discreet basis. By all means have licencing for all-day 7-day-a-week establishments that don't do anything else, but this ban closed struggling community pubs. It destroyed a financial safety valve, diversity, and directly lead to concentration of all-day 7-day-a-week establishments specialising in pole dancers because only the big operators could afford the operating costs. And that concentration is not a good thing for custoers, neighbours or dancers.