Abolish Stupid Restrictions on Pole Dancers

In a bizarre burst of Sir Humphryism, councils up and down the country have introduced huge rule books saying what pole dancers can and cannot do. In many council areas there are actual licence conditions banning a dancer from getting closer than 3 feet from their cutomer. How is this enforced? Is the dancer issued with a tape measure? If the customer is sat down is this measured from his face, hands or knees? If measured from his kneeds his face will be well over 4 feet away.

Other rules prevent dancers from flicking their hair.

Seriously, is this good use of the law?

Armies of public sector workers draft these rules, then write them into every licence, and even run training sessions! Club owners have to teach casual labouring staff – the dancers – every single rule, even if they only turn up once, because breaking the rules just once can lead to closure.

The more complex and lengthy rules are, the higher the risk that people will forget bits and misunderstand others.

Only one rule is required, and that is "No genital contact".

Why is this idea important?

In a bizarre burst of Sir Humphryism, councils up and down the country have introduced huge rule books saying what pole dancers can and cannot do. In many council areas there are actual licence conditions banning a dancer from getting closer than 3 feet from their cutomer. How is this enforced? Is the dancer issued with a tape measure? If the customer is sat down is this measured from his face, hands or knees? If measured from his kneeds his face will be well over 4 feet away.

Other rules prevent dancers from flicking their hair.

Seriously, is this good use of the law?

Armies of public sector workers draft these rules, then write them into every licence, and even run training sessions! Club owners have to teach casual labouring staff – the dancers – every single rule, even if they only turn up once, because breaking the rules just once can lead to closure.

The more complex and lengthy rules are, the higher the risk that people will forget bits and misunderstand others.

Only one rule is required, and that is "No genital contact".

End presecution of lap dancing clubs

At the moment there seems to be a concerted effort by certain lobby groups and government legislation to reduce or eliminate lap dancing clubs on moral grounds. Arguement range from accusations of increased crime to prostitution to drugs involvement, yet many of these areguements turn out to be completely false.

An example was that one of the anti-lap dancing lobby groups suggested that lap dancing clubs experience a high crime rate, yet crime statistics show that lap dancing clubs experience far fewer disturbances than normal night clubs.

I also dispute that lap dancing is exploitation of women because it is 100% consentual and the girls make a very good living. In addition, on the moral arguement, who has the right to impose their morals on other people?

Now, based on these kinds of warped argeuments, the previous government passed legislation that makes it easier for local authorities to close Lapdancing clubs. and I believe that this law is highy undemocratic and oppressive and should be repealed.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment there seems to be a concerted effort by certain lobby groups and government legislation to reduce or eliminate lap dancing clubs on moral grounds. Arguement range from accusations of increased crime to prostitution to drugs involvement, yet many of these areguements turn out to be completely false.

An example was that one of the anti-lap dancing lobby groups suggested that lap dancing clubs experience a high crime rate, yet crime statistics show that lap dancing clubs experience far fewer disturbances than normal night clubs.

I also dispute that lap dancing is exploitation of women because it is 100% consentual and the girls make a very good living. In addition, on the moral arguement, who has the right to impose their morals on other people?

Now, based on these kinds of warped argeuments, the previous government passed legislation that makes it easier for local authorities to close Lapdancing clubs. and I believe that this law is highy undemocratic and oppressive and should be repealed.

Draconian Licensing Regulations restricting public dancing or singing

The regulations under the Licensing Acts and the Local Government Acts restricting the playing of music in pubs, the activities of live musicians and whether the public are dancing or singing should be scrapped. It may come as a surprise to many that if a member of the public spontaneously starts dancing and or singing and the Licensee does not have a relevant license allowing the public to dance or sing then this is a breach of their license conditions and they could faced closure.

People should be free to sing and dance wherever they want in a liberal democracy such as ours. Landlords should not be forced to behave like Cromwellian informants and suppress normal human behaviour. 

I agree that very loud or disruptive behaviour disturbing the peace should be curtailed but under Common Law we already have the means to control this if there is a complaint or if the police have grounds to believe such behaviour could result in a danger to persons or property.

Why is this idea important?

The regulations under the Licensing Acts and the Local Government Acts restricting the playing of music in pubs, the activities of live musicians and whether the public are dancing or singing should be scrapped. It may come as a surprise to many that if a member of the public spontaneously starts dancing and or singing and the Licensee does not have a relevant license allowing the public to dance or sing then this is a breach of their license conditions and they could faced closure.

People should be free to sing and dance wherever they want in a liberal democracy such as ours. Landlords should not be forced to behave like Cromwellian informants and suppress normal human behaviour. 

I agree that very loud or disruptive behaviour disturbing the peace should be curtailed but under Common Law we already have the means to control this if there is a complaint or if the police have grounds to believe such behaviour could result in a danger to persons or property.

FOR PUBS REPEAL LIVE MUSIC LICENCE LAW

I assume it was the last Labour government that made the law that pubs that stage live music have to buy a compulsory live music licence that can cost something like £2,000 a year.  Although I have a full time office job I am also a musician myself.  I play piano and organ, and if much more music work was available I am the type of potential professional musician that would use it to supplement my income rather than be solely dependent on music for a livelihood.    I blame that daft unnecessary law for the sharp decline in demand for musicians to play paid live music because it is expensive enough to pay musicians without having to have an expensive licence on top of it in order to have the privilege of hiring musicians.  I believe that this daft live music licence law most probably discourages many pub landlords from staging live music and therefore destroys many musicians' jobs.  In that way the music licence law stifles and frustrates musical enterprise, and in that way is contributory to keeping the economy weak.  Because of that I can see that law being equally unpopular with potential professional musicians like myself to how unpopular it probably is with pub landlords.  It is just like a very heavy tax on live music, and I am sure that is the main factor that is killing off live music.

Why is this idea important?

I assume it was the last Labour government that made the law that pubs that stage live music have to buy a compulsory live music licence that can cost something like £2,000 a year.  Although I have a full time office job I am also a musician myself.  I play piano and organ, and if much more music work was available I am the type of potential professional musician that would use it to supplement my income rather than be solely dependent on music for a livelihood.    I blame that daft unnecessary law for the sharp decline in demand for musicians to play paid live music because it is expensive enough to pay musicians without having to have an expensive licence on top of it in order to have the privilege of hiring musicians.  I believe that this daft live music licence law most probably discourages many pub landlords from staging live music and therefore destroys many musicians' jobs.  In that way the music licence law stifles and frustrates musical enterprise, and in that way is contributory to keeping the economy weak.  Because of that I can see that law being equally unpopular with potential professional musicians like myself to how unpopular it probably is with pub landlords.  It is just like a very heavy tax on live music, and I am sure that is the main factor that is killing off live music.

Legalise Filesharing

Filesharers have long been accused of stealing, with ad campaigns telling is that downloading a film is the equivalent of stealing a DVD.

That is simply not the case:

For a start, when filesharing one is not taking anything of material or intrinsic value. One is taking copying and taking a file, that is, a collection of 1s and 0s.

Digital media can be copied instantly and sent to anyone on the globe with an internet connection at incredible speed, free of charge. To allow large corporations to charge money for this sort of media is absurd; it's like making people pay for air.

The media conglomerates say that they are losing revenue. They are only losing a nominal sum of money. Truth be told it cannot be quantified, but let me just say this: someone who downloads a film or album free of charge, illegally, in 90% of cases would not have purchased it anyway. Therefore they are not depriving anyone of any income.

Films and music will always be profitable; there is such thing as a cinema and a concert. To say that a downloaded copy of a film or album is the same as a cinema showing or concert (which one must pay for to enter) is complete nonsense. To say that people will prefer the former to the latter is also nonsense; fans will always want the true, immersive experience you get in a cinema or concert.

Why is this idea important?

Filesharers have long been accused of stealing, with ad campaigns telling is that downloading a film is the equivalent of stealing a DVD.

That is simply not the case:

For a start, when filesharing one is not taking anything of material or intrinsic value. One is taking copying and taking a file, that is, a collection of 1s and 0s.

Digital media can be copied instantly and sent to anyone on the globe with an internet connection at incredible speed, free of charge. To allow large corporations to charge money for this sort of media is absurd; it's like making people pay for air.

The media conglomerates say that they are losing revenue. They are only losing a nominal sum of money. Truth be told it cannot be quantified, but let me just say this: someone who downloads a film or album free of charge, illegally, in 90% of cases would not have purchased it anyway. Therefore they are not depriving anyone of any income.

Films and music will always be profitable; there is such thing as a cinema and a concert. To say that a downloaded copy of a film or album is the same as a cinema showing or concert (which one must pay for to enter) is complete nonsense. To say that people will prefer the former to the latter is also nonsense; fans will always want the true, immersive experience you get in a cinema or concert.

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.

repeal music licensing laws

As a musician I have watched my work  diminish as government interference through the complex procedure of music licensing has led to venues simply giving up live music. This coupled with the complete smoking ban has had a disastrous effect on the entertainment industry and coupled with the closure of 50 potential venues a week has literally robbed many musicians and entertainers of their livelihood. Now I know Ken Clarke is a keen jazz fan and I am sure that he would agree that anything that restricts live entertainment like this should be scrapped,because many budding musicians first experiences of live performance is often in pubs. In Ireland musicians can get together and provide inpromptu entertainment in a hostelry with no restrictions,this is impossible in England today.The law that restricts musical activity should be scrapped.

Why is this idea important?

As a musician I have watched my work  diminish as government interference through the complex procedure of music licensing has led to venues simply giving up live music. This coupled with the complete smoking ban has had a disastrous effect on the entertainment industry and coupled with the closure of 50 potential venues a week has literally robbed many musicians and entertainers of their livelihood. Now I know Ken Clarke is a keen jazz fan and I am sure that he would agree that anything that restricts live entertainment like this should be scrapped,because many budding musicians first experiences of live performance is often in pubs. In Ireland musicians can get together and provide inpromptu entertainment in a hostelry with no restrictions,this is impossible in England today.The law that restricts musical activity should be scrapped.

Repeal The Sunday Observance Act 1780

The act prohibits admission to a building on a Sunday for payment.

The act prohibits "public entertainment" & "amusement" on a Sunday (when paying for entry)

The act prohibits differential pricing of food and drink on Sundays compared to other days.

Any person advertising the above shall be libel to a fine of £50.

Why is this idea important?

The act prohibits admission to a building on a Sunday for payment.

The act prohibits "public entertainment" & "amusement" on a Sunday (when paying for entry)

The act prohibits differential pricing of food and drink on Sundays compared to other days.

Any person advertising the above shall be libel to a fine of £50.

To gather and hold an Annual Free festival

 

The time has come for at least One annual sanctioned free festival under common law rules

We “The Free” are a growing collective of many groups and individuals and are willing to create an organisation capable of arranging, executing and funding a sanctioned free lawful festival.

Under Common Law an advertised free festival would be lawful, under statutes it is Illegal, an event would be worthy and visionary furthering fundamental rights and pursuing freedom to gather. To hold gatherings, encompassing music, song, the spoken word and performance arts without the constraints of a license or corporate commercialism, free festivals are part of our culture and heritage and indeed a right.time a
We are in a different world now from when free gatherings, fairs and to more recently large free music festivals took place. Many of these have gone and what hasn't been lost is under threat.
As a society we may need to move on but we need to create something to take their place, something that will fit in, something different. We understand the opposition to an open season on very large free gatherings that happen without control but we should be able to replace them with something, that is obvious.
,
Gatherings, fairs and festivals are as old as time and part of our culture and traditions right up to the present. in recent times we have lost many old fairs and festivals.
In the latter part of the 20th century there had been resurgence of free festivals like Stonehenge Free Festival, Windsor Free, and others. These were very popular but were stamped upon by the Authorities, sometimes by quite harsh actions.
With the growing popularity of dance music after the closing down of the illegal pay parties of the late 1980's, a new type of free festival grew in the early 1990's with an energy unknown in free festivals that preceded them and a new breed of sound systems and a new phenomenon arose called freeparties and free festivals now coined teknivals.
Many thousands of people each week would meet, gather and dance all night and day at secret locations across Britain. Old festival dates were taken over like Beltain where tens of thousands would descend and mass unlicensed multi-rig festivals would take place. New laws and Draconian measures were taken to combat this including the decimation of the New Age traveller communities who were a driving force of these festivals.
After the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 there was a lull in free parties and free festivals but only for a year or two and before long a new wave, even more determined, continued. Even after 20 years of oppression, including new statutes and additions to existing statutes like the 2003 licencing act, these events still continue albeit smaller and hounded. The time has come for at least One annual sanctioned free festival under common law rules.


join us on facebook http://www.facebook.com/?tid=1221573398479&sk=messages#!/group.php?gid=118462118199126&v=info&ref=ts

or email: thefreefest@gmail.com

together we can grow up 

Why is this idea important?

 

The time has come for at least One annual sanctioned free festival under common law rules

We “The Free” are a growing collective of many groups and individuals and are willing to create an organisation capable of arranging, executing and funding a sanctioned free lawful festival.

Under Common Law an advertised free festival would be lawful, under statutes it is Illegal, an event would be worthy and visionary furthering fundamental rights and pursuing freedom to gather. To hold gatherings, encompassing music, song, the spoken word and performance arts without the constraints of a license or corporate commercialism, free festivals are part of our culture and heritage and indeed a right.time a
We are in a different world now from when free gatherings, fairs and to more recently large free music festivals took place. Many of these have gone and what hasn't been lost is under threat.
As a society we may need to move on but we need to create something to take their place, something that will fit in, something different. We understand the opposition to an open season on very large free gatherings that happen without control but we should be able to replace them with something, that is obvious.
,
Gatherings, fairs and festivals are as old as time and part of our culture and traditions right up to the present. in recent times we have lost many old fairs and festivals.
In the latter part of the 20th century there had been resurgence of free festivals like Stonehenge Free Festival, Windsor Free, and others. These were very popular but were stamped upon by the Authorities, sometimes by quite harsh actions.
With the growing popularity of dance music after the closing down of the illegal pay parties of the late 1980's, a new type of free festival grew in the early 1990's with an energy unknown in free festivals that preceded them and a new breed of sound systems and a new phenomenon arose called freeparties and free festivals now coined teknivals.
Many thousands of people each week would meet, gather and dance all night and day at secret locations across Britain. Old festival dates were taken over like Beltain where tens of thousands would descend and mass unlicensed multi-rig festivals would take place. New laws and Draconian measures were taken to combat this including the decimation of the New Age traveller communities who were a driving force of these festivals.
After the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 there was a lull in free parties and free festivals but only for a year or two and before long a new wave, even more determined, continued. Even after 20 years of oppression, including new statutes and additions to existing statutes like the 2003 licencing act, these events still continue albeit smaller and hounded. The time has come for at least One annual sanctioned free festival under common law rules.


join us on facebook http://www.facebook.com/?tid=1221573398479&sk=messages#!/group.php?gid=118462118199126&v=info&ref=ts

or email: thefreefest@gmail.com

together we can grow up 

Stop applying child entertainment employment regulations to Youth Theatres/Dance Schools etc

Currently laws that were properly put in place to protect children's welfare and prevent exploitation in the professional theatre are being applied in a nonsensical fashion to youth theatres, dance schools and other youth participation groups involving performance.  The civil liberties of the children are being infringed by the draconian regulations which have to be enforced by voluntary but registered chaperones. It is as if during the week of the actual performance a barbed wire fence suddenly goes up around the children.  They think this is mad and so do the adults obliged to enforce the madness. Why, when the children are in the theatre during performance with exactly the same group of children and adults with whom they have been working for months, are they suddenly not able to exercise any personal freedom? This is NOT child protection it is child oppression. 

Why is this idea important?

Currently laws that were properly put in place to protect children's welfare and prevent exploitation in the professional theatre are being applied in a nonsensical fashion to youth theatres, dance schools and other youth participation groups involving performance.  The civil liberties of the children are being infringed by the draconian regulations which have to be enforced by voluntary but registered chaperones. It is as if during the week of the actual performance a barbed wire fence suddenly goes up around the children.  They think this is mad and so do the adults obliged to enforce the madness. Why, when the children are in the theatre during performance with exactly the same group of children and adults with whom they have been working for months, are they suddenly not able to exercise any personal freedom? This is NOT child protection it is child oppression. 

Remove restrictions on village social events

The last Government  dramatically  restricted the number of events involving alcohol ( dances, parties, concerts, quizzes etc) that can be run in a village hall per year. This has affected the viability of halls which are a keystone of rural communities. It has also cut off funds to those village bodies relying on that income and also the social life of often isolated communities. IF the motive was to help village pubs it has had no benefit, because those attending events in the hall are not in the main pub "regulars". There was no public order motive as the average age of atttendees would generally render that out of the question. This was -as in so many cases- silly legislation imposed for something to do. Remove please!

Why is this idea important?

The last Government  dramatically  restricted the number of events involving alcohol ( dances, parties, concerts, quizzes etc) that can be run in a village hall per year. This has affected the viability of halls which are a keystone of rural communities. It has also cut off funds to those village bodies relying on that income and also the social life of often isolated communities. IF the motive was to help village pubs it has had no benefit, because those attending events in the hall are not in the main pub "regulars". There was no public order motive as the average age of atttendees would generally render that out of the question. This was -as in so many cases- silly legislation imposed for something to do. Remove please!

Licensing Act 2003 “Entertainment”

The Licensing Act 2003 introduced licensing for "entertainment" almost anywhere, including open spaces which had never previously required licensing.

In Scotland, there is no requirement to get a licence for "entertainment", existing public nuisance and public safety laws (the same as in England and Wales) being considered sufficient to prevent any difficulties. 

Though the 2003 act exempted a small number of activities (church services and morris dancing) other similar "entertainments" (for example mummers plays and other traditional pastimes) are still effectively banned by the act, even in the open air where they have always traditionally been allowed.

There’s no evidence that staging live entertainment leads to crime or disorder any more than other kinds of public gathering. Excessively noisy premises can already be served noise abatement orders under the Environmental Protection Act, or fined under the Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act.  There is also no evidence that there is a crisis of public disorder in Scotland caused by the act not applying there.

All of the "entertainment" clauses in the Licensing Act 2003 should simply be repealed.  It's hard to understand how they should be needed in England and Wales but not in Scotland.

Why is this idea important?

The Licensing Act 2003 introduced licensing for "entertainment" almost anywhere, including open spaces which had never previously required licensing.

In Scotland, there is no requirement to get a licence for "entertainment", existing public nuisance and public safety laws (the same as in England and Wales) being considered sufficient to prevent any difficulties. 

Though the 2003 act exempted a small number of activities (church services and morris dancing) other similar "entertainments" (for example mummers plays and other traditional pastimes) are still effectively banned by the act, even in the open air where they have always traditionally been allowed.

There’s no evidence that staging live entertainment leads to crime or disorder any more than other kinds of public gathering. Excessively noisy premises can already be served noise abatement orders under the Environmental Protection Act, or fined under the Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act.  There is also no evidence that there is a crisis of public disorder in Scotland caused by the act not applying there.

All of the "entertainment" clauses in the Licensing Act 2003 should simply be repealed.  It's hard to understand how they should be needed in England and Wales but not in Scotland.