Licensing live music

I’m not sure what was hoped to be achieved by these more recent music licensing laws but I do know the effect it has had on the small amateur musical band I play in. We no longer are able to sing and play at our local old folk’s homes and similar venues. Everyone got lots of enjoyment from our visits and it was for the love of music not money. Surely that’s what making music should be about. We no longer have anywhere to play without breaking the law and I feel it is an infringement on our freedom of expression.
The final nail went in the coffin, when I found out that the children from the local school won’t be making their annual visit to sing carols at the library Christmas coffee morning due to the music licensing laws. The young are unfortunately not exempt.
Youngsters love music and being free to play and sing in bands etc. It’s what made the 60’s come alive and be remembered as good times. Not so now, hey! It’s probably more a kin to Cromwell’s puritan times.
Change the music licensing laws so that everyone can enjoy playing and listening to live music!

Why is this idea important?

I’m not sure what was hoped to be achieved by these more recent music licensing laws but I do know the effect it has had on the small amateur musical band I play in. We no longer are able to sing and play at our local old folk’s homes and similar venues. Everyone got lots of enjoyment from our visits and it was for the love of music not money. Surely that’s what making music should be about. We no longer have anywhere to play without breaking the law and I feel it is an infringement on our freedom of expression.
The final nail went in the coffin, when I found out that the children from the local school won’t be making their annual visit to sing carols at the library Christmas coffee morning due to the music licensing laws. The young are unfortunately not exempt.
Youngsters love music and being free to play and sing in bands etc. It’s what made the 60’s come alive and be remembered as good times. Not so now, hey! It’s probably more a kin to Cromwell’s puritan times.
Change the music licensing laws so that everyone can enjoy playing and listening to live music!

Repeal the criminal justice bill laws relating to free parties & raves

Allocate by order areas of land through out the country where free parties festvals &raves can take place without the draconian criminal justice bill criminalising good organisers of these events,it will stop binge drinking culture ,local organisers can access these plots by applying to thier local council &working with them ,this also encourages true free enterprise with many opportunities for ordinary people to earn a living.Its not rocket science,true free enterprise can free people from benefit culture.

Why is this idea important?

Allocate by order areas of land through out the country where free parties festvals &raves can take place without the draconian criminal justice bill criminalising good organisers of these events,it will stop binge drinking culture ,local organisers can access these plots by applying to thier local council &working with them ,this also encourages true free enterprise with many opportunities for ordinary people to earn a living.Its not rocket science,true free enterprise can free people from benefit culture.

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.

Change the music licensing law of 2003

This law is killing live music and closing down all the small venues to the benefit of large corporate chains who can easily afford the licence. It should either be completely repealed or changed so that you only need a licience to play music above a certain decibel level for any sustained period, if this was set at a sesible level it would allow for some control of noise when a venue started to regulaly annoy its neighbours but it would mean that most events could take place without the need to buy a licence. Decibel meters can be obtained cheaply and a venue operating without a licence would have a perfect excuse to turn down the volume of any unruly performers.

Why is this idea important?

This law is killing live music and closing down all the small venues to the benefit of large corporate chains who can easily afford the licence. It should either be completely repealed or changed so that you only need a licience to play music above a certain decibel level for any sustained period, if this was set at a sesible level it would allow for some control of noise when a venue started to regulaly annoy its neighbours but it would mean that most events could take place without the need to buy a licence. Decibel meters can be obtained cheaply and a venue operating without a licence would have a perfect excuse to turn down the volume of any unruly performers.

Ban The Stereotype!!! There is a serious side to this.

As a rock'n'roll male of the species I have long hair and ear-rings.  I used to wear a suit when I worked for the banks as well.  They recognised the 'student' and 'arty-farty' factor, and how relevant it was to custom.

Many don't though, and the bullying can get pretty bad.

Your appearance is tied to who you are as a person.  It's part of your personality, and everything to do with that.  And linked to your mental health as well.  Bully someone for long enough over something as petty as fashion and you will harm them.

And if they're downtrodden will they be able to show any of the genius they once had?  It's unlikely, as they'll be too afraid to even think straight.

Why is this idea important?

As a rock'n'roll male of the species I have long hair and ear-rings.  I used to wear a suit when I worked for the banks as well.  They recognised the 'student' and 'arty-farty' factor, and how relevant it was to custom.

Many don't though, and the bullying can get pretty bad.

Your appearance is tied to who you are as a person.  It's part of your personality, and everything to do with that.  And linked to your mental health as well.  Bully someone for long enough over something as petty as fashion and you will harm them.

And if they're downtrodden will they be able to show any of the genius they once had?  It's unlikely, as they'll be too afraid to even think straight.

Noise at Work (Music teaching)

Get rid of the HSE regulations regarding noise at work applying to music teaching in schools and other environments. It is ludicrous to apply regulations clearly designed to apply to heavy industry to the teaching of something that is intrinsically bound up with the sound. A music teacher accepts that they will be 'exposed' to noise and will take responsibility themselves for keeping it to 'safe' levels. Putting this responsibility onto the employer is classic nanny-stateism. Noone that I know in the music education sector wants these regs. So let's abollish them

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of the HSE regulations regarding noise at work applying to music teaching in schools and other environments. It is ludicrous to apply regulations clearly designed to apply to heavy industry to the teaching of something that is intrinsically bound up with the sound. A music teacher accepts that they will be 'exposed' to noise and will take responsibility themselves for keeping it to 'safe' levels. Putting this responsibility onto the employer is classic nanny-stateism. Noone that I know in the music education sector wants these regs. So let's abollish them

Repeal the music licensing law of 2003

Previous to this law being enacted two musicians could play in a restaurant or bar without any license being required.  Since this law was passed, even a charity can't put on an event without having a license for music.  Private parties require licenses for music even if the music isn't impinging on neighbours.  I run a jazz club for the past 30 years and have been employing many musicians who in turn pay their tax to the government.  I am also a jazz vocalist and through my gigs again employ many different musicians to play with me at various hotel and restaurant venues. Again, this adds to the government's revenue.  There are many venues that would love to have music and employ us but can't be bothered to get a license or simply can't afford it.  The music attracts people to their restaurants and hotels and again generates income on which they pay taxes.  This revenue is no doubt more than the cost of the license.  It is just beaurocracy gone mad.  It is also false economy.  Repeal this ridiculous law.  Instead you may wish to control the level of noise generated by Discos which is going to cause a generation of deaf people adding to the burden of the NHS.

Why is this idea important?

Previous to this law being enacted two musicians could play in a restaurant or bar without any license being required.  Since this law was passed, even a charity can't put on an event without having a license for music.  Private parties require licenses for music even if the music isn't impinging on neighbours.  I run a jazz club for the past 30 years and have been employing many musicians who in turn pay their tax to the government.  I am also a jazz vocalist and through my gigs again employ many different musicians to play with me at various hotel and restaurant venues. Again, this adds to the government's revenue.  There are many venues that would love to have music and employ us but can't be bothered to get a license or simply can't afford it.  The music attracts people to their restaurants and hotels and again generates income on which they pay taxes.  This revenue is no doubt more than the cost of the license.  It is just beaurocracy gone mad.  It is also false economy.  Repeal this ridiculous law.  Instead you may wish to control the level of noise generated by Discos which is going to cause a generation of deaf people adding to the burden of the NHS.

Music Licensing Laws

Is it at all possible to put the music licensing laws back to how they were a few years ago? At out school, we held a Children in Need concert a few years ago with teachers providing the band, as we had some people who could play -great success. We decided to do another one a few months later and found out that now, we would NEED A LICENSE for it. Nobody had the time or energy to face the paperwork for it so we cancelled it! Every time we think of doing something along these lines, we hit the same problem. It seems that anyone wishing to do any kind of musical performance these days, even if its just a couple of people playing, now needs a license! 

Another example of how stupid, stifling, petty and restrictive this law is, is provided by my friend who runs a small wine bar. He would like to have a bit of live music -it used to be the case that a couple of musicians could play and a license wouldn't be required. However, he has discovered that he can't do this and so it's piped music and/or kareoke. Again, the hassle of going through the red tape makes it easier not to bother and that means that talented musicians can't get to perform. 

Why is this idea important?

Is it at all possible to put the music licensing laws back to how they were a few years ago? At out school, we held a Children in Need concert a few years ago with teachers providing the band, as we had some people who could play -great success. We decided to do another one a few months later and found out that now, we would NEED A LICENSE for it. Nobody had the time or energy to face the paperwork for it so we cancelled it! Every time we think of doing something along these lines, we hit the same problem. It seems that anyone wishing to do any kind of musical performance these days, even if its just a couple of people playing, now needs a license! 

Another example of how stupid, stifling, petty and restrictive this law is, is provided by my friend who runs a small wine bar. He would like to have a bit of live music -it used to be the case that a couple of musicians could play and a license wouldn't be required. However, he has discovered that he can't do this and so it's piped music and/or kareoke. Again, the hassle of going through the red tape makes it easier not to bother and that means that talented musicians can't get to perform. 

Copyright modification for internet use

Currently copyright makes it illegal by default to use bits downloaded and uploaded via internet. This default behaviour that all bits on the internet are illegal by default and you need to ask a permission to use those bits from someone other side of the world. This should be modified so that bits are legal by default and illegal activity happens only when something more serious than normal internet use is happening. The limits of the copyright protection should be checked. Why current system is not working is because anyone could be successfully sued based on current rules and it takes huge amount of effort to avoid those arbitrary restrictions that are preventing _all_ use of bits downloaded over internet.

Why is this idea important?

Currently copyright makes it illegal by default to use bits downloaded and uploaded via internet. This default behaviour that all bits on the internet are illegal by default and you need to ask a permission to use those bits from someone other side of the world. This should be modified so that bits are legal by default and illegal activity happens only when something more serious than normal internet use is happening. The limits of the copyright protection should be checked. Why current system is not working is because anyone could be successfully sued based on current rules and it takes huge amount of effort to avoid those arbitrary restrictions that are preventing _all_ use of bits downloaded over internet.

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.

Copyright changes

Start to reverse the escalations in copyright legislation. For example reduce the period of time, limit the situations and/or periods wherin copyright can be transferred from the original holder to companies.

Why is this idea important?

Start to reverse the escalations in copyright legislation. For example reduce the period of time, limit the situations and/or periods wherin copyright can be transferred from the original holder to companies.

Music in schools should be compulsory

Music is good for developing minds – this is fact – music can inspire and give outlets to imagination and talents that other subjects might not reach – making music with instruments and voices is an enriching group experience, second to none. Some Muslim parents are asking for their children to be exempted from music lessons as they have an ignorant notion (not supported by more liberal Muslim scholars) that music is "haram" or forbidden by the Koran as something corrupt and orgiastic. If it were simply compulsory in the curriculum such parents would not be able to impose this restirction on their children, denying them understanding and experience in one of the greatest art forms, incredibly important the world over, but utterly a central part of Western Civilisation. This would avoid any conflict between the school / teachers and such parents, and Muslims could not choose which subjects suited their beliefs but would accept that their children had to learn something they didn't understand and might even come to think differently aboput it themselves when exposed to traditional folk and classical styles, realising it's not all sexy Pop and R&B. I aslo believe in scrapping faith schools so that they could not opt out to attend a Muslim school (or Catholic, Jewish, Hindu or whatever). Moreover, I believe there should be restrictions imposed on family size by some  measure of not offering anything free (schooling, health, child benefit etc) and applying a tax on the 4th child and beyond. This had been successful in Sin gapore and we have to do something to send a message to certain communities who think God will provide for their brood of 12. I teach lovely Muslim women and this year I had a class of fifteen mothers with more than 100 childcren betwen them giving the women no chance ever to work or study commitedly, for that mattter, and all with the view that they were blessed with all these healthy children, not seeing the connection with living in a first world country, supported by tax payers. Please address this issue or there will be a further resentment towards this community and over the many years I have taught, it isn't through teachers and citzenship classes that these age-old ideas can be challenged and revised, but through legislation. They don't want to break our laws, or the laws of other uropean coutries, which is why many many Muslims with Eurpoean passports are moving to the UK as they see it as more liberal and tolerant. It is fantastic that britain is seen in this way, but we also don't want to be taken for mugs by encouraging this imbalance in our population. A further dire consequence of this is a shortage of school places in areas like Brent.

I know this isn't one idea, but two, basically and both might appear to be islamophobic, but they are not; they are sensible ideas to nudge people into better integration, into controlling fertility as we all have a responsibility to do (what a pity two recent PMs – Blair  & Cameron – both feel it is their right to have large families – Diana & Charles were responsible and that family needs heirs!) and to ensure one group of children are not deprived in education and those little Mulim Mozarts are found.  I know you want less compulsion from the establishment and take a libertarian stance in principle to education, but we have a social time bomb on our hands (just as Israel does with its orthodox jews who will not do paid work and have a dozen children) which we should take pains to avert in  the interests of harmony and cohesion. I do not support the banning of the burkha as this is a woman's (mad) choice, but she has no right to impose this choice or any other religious one on her children.

Why is this idea important?

Music is good for developing minds – this is fact – music can inspire and give outlets to imagination and talents that other subjects might not reach – making music with instruments and voices is an enriching group experience, second to none. Some Muslim parents are asking for their children to be exempted from music lessons as they have an ignorant notion (not supported by more liberal Muslim scholars) that music is "haram" or forbidden by the Koran as something corrupt and orgiastic. If it were simply compulsory in the curriculum such parents would not be able to impose this restirction on their children, denying them understanding and experience in one of the greatest art forms, incredibly important the world over, but utterly a central part of Western Civilisation. This would avoid any conflict between the school / teachers and such parents, and Muslims could not choose which subjects suited their beliefs but would accept that their children had to learn something they didn't understand and might even come to think differently aboput it themselves when exposed to traditional folk and classical styles, realising it's not all sexy Pop and R&B. I aslo believe in scrapping faith schools so that they could not opt out to attend a Muslim school (or Catholic, Jewish, Hindu or whatever). Moreover, I believe there should be restrictions imposed on family size by some  measure of not offering anything free (schooling, health, child benefit etc) and applying a tax on the 4th child and beyond. This had been successful in Sin gapore and we have to do something to send a message to certain communities who think God will provide for their brood of 12. I teach lovely Muslim women and this year I had a class of fifteen mothers with more than 100 childcren betwen them giving the women no chance ever to work or study commitedly, for that mattter, and all with the view that they were blessed with all these healthy children, not seeing the connection with living in a first world country, supported by tax payers. Please address this issue or there will be a further resentment towards this community and over the many years I have taught, it isn't through teachers and citzenship classes that these age-old ideas can be challenged and revised, but through legislation. They don't want to break our laws, or the laws of other uropean coutries, which is why many many Muslims with Eurpoean passports are moving to the UK as they see it as more liberal and tolerant. It is fantastic that britain is seen in this way, but we also don't want to be taken for mugs by encouraging this imbalance in our population. A further dire consequence of this is a shortage of school places in areas like Brent.

I know this isn't one idea, but two, basically and both might appear to be islamophobic, but they are not; they are sensible ideas to nudge people into better integration, into controlling fertility as we all have a responsibility to do (what a pity two recent PMs – Blair  & Cameron – both feel it is their right to have large families – Diana & Charles were responsible and that family needs heirs!) and to ensure one group of children are not deprived in education and those little Mulim Mozarts are found.  I know you want less compulsion from the establishment and take a libertarian stance in principle to education, but we have a social time bomb on our hands (just as Israel does with its orthodox jews who will not do paid work and have a dozen children) which we should take pains to avert in  the interests of harmony and cohesion. I do not support the banning of the burkha as this is a woman's (mad) choice, but she has no right to impose this choice or any other religious one on her children.

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.

DEbill

DEbill passed under the Labour government has major implications on civil liberties? I also believe the Conservative and Liberal Democrats were both against the bill?

Why is this idea important?

DEbill passed under the Labour government has major implications on civil liberties? I also believe the Conservative and Liberal Democrats were both against the bill?

Repeal the draconian sections of the CJA, allow us to dance for joy!

It makes great sense to repeal the parts of the CJA that make dancing and listening to music a criminal offence. This has been taken to outrageous lengths by some counties with the loss of liberty, homes(in vehicles) and property that ensues. To find an area that has few near by residents and listen to music and dance all night, celebrating life, the beauty of our countryside and enjoying the company of friends should not be illegal, it should be encouraged. Clearing up afterwards should always be a part of the event and we shouldnt need a license or have to justify, or pay, for the  privilege of being alive and happy to be so. Its rare that people are bothered or aggravated by parties more that one night a year, the locations vary as often as the weather and the attendees, so is being disturbed one night of the year really such a trial? where's the tolerance? dont moan and complain, come and join us, you'd be very welcome.
 

Why is this idea important?

It makes great sense to repeal the parts of the CJA that make dancing and listening to music a criminal offence. This has been taken to outrageous lengths by some counties with the loss of liberty, homes(in vehicles) and property that ensues. To find an area that has few near by residents and listen to music and dance all night, celebrating life, the beauty of our countryside and enjoying the company of friends should not be illegal, it should be encouraged. Clearing up afterwards should always be a part of the event and we shouldnt need a license or have to justify, or pay, for the  privilege of being alive and happy to be so. Its rare that people are bothered or aggravated by parties more that one night a year, the locations vary as often as the weather and the attendees, so is being disturbed one night of the year really such a trial? where's the tolerance? dont moan and complain, come and join us, you'd be very welcome.
 

Repeal Digital Economy Act

The Digital Economy Act was brought into force as one of the last acts of the outgoing Labour government, with the support of the Tories and against the wishes of the LibDems. This undemocratically enacted act must be repealed and the parliament must be given a proper debate about its future.

Why is this idea important?

The Digital Economy Act was brought into force as one of the last acts of the outgoing Labour government, with the support of the Tories and against the wishes of the LibDems. This undemocratically enacted act must be repealed and the parliament must be given a proper debate about its future.

Repeal the digital economy act

Repeal the act as it operates badly.  It's known to be bad law.

 

Several people have suggested this.  it's unfair.  There are 19 entries if you search here for digital economy act and all are against it, but it is not possible to vote on any.  The system on those is broken.  Interesting! Just on an act about IT!   So I am suggesting it again as it is also not possible to comment now on any of the others.

 

And yes I do know how to vote and have done so on other items.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the act as it operates badly.  It's known to be bad law.

 

Several people have suggested this.  it's unfair.  There are 19 entries if you search here for digital economy act and all are against it, but it is not possible to vote on any.  The system on those is broken.  Interesting! Just on an act about IT!   So I am suggesting it again as it is also not possible to comment now on any of the others.

 

And yes I do know how to vote and have done so on other items.

Playing Music on Business Premises

Why should we business owners have to pay to play music in our premises?  If we have gone out and purchased that CD/Song we have already given our money to the record company why spend out more just because were a business>

If a member of the public plays there music so loud in there backgarden everyone can hear it they dont have to pay extra for it.

Does everyone think because its a business they can afford to pay extra?

Why is this idea important?

Why should we business owners have to pay to play music in our premises?  If we have gone out and purchased that CD/Song we have already given our money to the record company why spend out more just because were a business>

If a member of the public plays there music so loud in there backgarden everyone can hear it they dont have to pay extra for it.

Does everyone think because its a business they can afford to pay extra?

Playing music in business premises

Why should we business owners have to pay to play music in our premises?  If we have gone out and purchased that CD/Song we have already given money to the record company why spend out more just because were a business.

If a member of the public plays there music so loud in there backgarden that everyone can hear it they dont have to pay extra for it.

Does everyone think because its a business they can afford to pay extra?

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Why should we business owners have to pay to play music in our premises?  If we have gone out and purchased that CD/Song we have already given money to the record company why spend out more just because were a business.

If a member of the public plays there music so loud in there backgarden that everyone can hear it they dont have to pay extra for it.

Does everyone think because its a business they can afford to pay extra?

 

 

making music in a public place

We all love live music.  At the moment we are not allowed to sing carols in the street, or in pubs, or strike up a traditional song while having a beer, or play music for our friends in a pub for a special occasion. the only exemption are Morris dancers.. and it may be  that they dance they dont sing!

so – can the laws on music making in public be reviewed in so far as   they actually affect our rights as citizens to burst into song, to celebrate our wonderful life ?? And hopefully the more idiotic laws will be repealed.

Why is this idea important?

We all love live music.  At the moment we are not allowed to sing carols in the street, or in pubs, or strike up a traditional song while having a beer, or play music for our friends in a pub for a special occasion. the only exemption are Morris dancers.. and it may be  that they dance they dont sing!

so – can the laws on music making in public be reviewed in so far as   they actually affect our rights as citizens to burst into song, to celebrate our wonderful life ?? And hopefully the more idiotic laws will be repealed.

The repeal/review of many sections of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Section 54-59 & Section 60


(greater police powers in regards to searching and the taking of fingerprints and DNA,
greater police powers in regards to unregulated 'Stop & Search' policies).


Section 63-67


(definition of prohibited music in public places using the term 'repetitive beats', enablement of police to stop 100 or more attendees of events with music defined as containing 'repetative beats',


enablement of police to stop 2 or more organisers of of such events prior to them actually happening,


the absurd section 65 which enables police to stop and redirect any person they suspect of planning to attend such events within a 5 mile radius,


the enablement of police to stop protests deemed a nuisance including amongst other things, unauthorised camping).

Why is this idea important?

Section 54-59 & Section 60


(greater police powers in regards to searching and the taking of fingerprints and DNA,
greater police powers in regards to unregulated 'Stop & Search' policies).


Section 63-67


(definition of prohibited music in public places using the term 'repetitive beats', enablement of police to stop 100 or more attendees of events with music defined as containing 'repetative beats',


enablement of police to stop 2 or more organisers of of such events prior to them actually happening,


the absurd section 65 which enables police to stop and redirect any person they suspect of planning to attend such events within a 5 mile radius,


the enablement of police to stop protests deemed a nuisance including amongst other things, unauthorised camping).

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