[Dixielandjazz] Regarding U.K. taxation...time for another Revolution!!!

[Patrick Cooke]

If the license is just to insure the proper number of exits, rest rooms,
etc, then one inspection a year should cover it.  The idea to tax everytime
live music is played is just a revenue grab.  As usual, the entertainment
industry is "non-essential" and an easy target.  Also, pub owners aren't
politicians' main sources of campaign contributions.
     Politicians appear to be the same all over.
      Pat Cooke


----- Original Message -----
From: <Jazzjerry@aol.com>
To: <Artwoo@aol.com>; <dixielandjazz@ml.islandnet.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 2:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Dixielandjazz] Regarding U.K. taxation...time for another
Revolution!!!


> Hi Art and others,
>
> This is not a tax on anything stealth or otherwise. For many years in the
UK
> if you wished to have public music singing or dancing then it was
necessary
> to have a licence which used to be known as an MSD. It was to ensure that
> your premises were suitable for such activities and had basic health and
> safety and planning requirements. eg you were not supposed to have a busy
> music venue in a basement with onlly one exit or maybe not have a noisy
dance
> hall next to a hospital with having noise transmission restrictions.
Several
> years ago the old MSD was replaced by something called a 'Public
> Entertainment Licence' which covered all premises which intended to have
live
> music. here have been many problems with this new PEL because the
government
> (the previous Conservative one!) left it up to local authorities (Distric
> Councils) as to how to grant these licences. Some have used the granting
of a
> licence as a means of getting revenue by charging very high fees for the
> necessary inspections and administration.
>
> The new legislation is a change in this existing rules by including many
> other places in the licence requirements. For example if you put on a jazz
> band in the back room of a pub at the moment then you require a licence
which
> guarantees certain safety features such as emergency lighting, number of
> exits, maximum number of customers etc. but if you put on a disco or
karaoke
> or even a stripper removing her clothes to recorded music then the licence
> and relevenat safety requirements do not apply and you can pack people in
> like sardines!
>
> To me the extention of safety requirements seems not a bad idea. I believe
> that the local authorities will stiil grant the licences but the terms and
> conditions together with the level of licence fees will be centrally
> determined instead of being left to each local Authority. The exact levels
of
> the fees, who might be exempt from charges has yet to be decided and in
fact
> the whole thing is only a Bill not an Act which means many changes can
take
> place before it reaches the statute book.
>
> Yes many new premises will come under the umbrella of the legislation
> including churches schools, etc. but only if they provide public
> entertainment as 'religious activities' are exempted. I cannot see why a
> church should not have to comply with safety rules if they decide to have
a
> pop concert in the building.
>
> No, this is not a taxation issue but one of health and safety for the
public.
> There are plenty of points in the proposals which need to be changed but
many
> of the points are good and should the whole thing get thrown out we will
be
> left with the current situation which to be frank is a bloody awful mess.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jerry,
> Norwich, U.K.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dixielandjazz mailing list
> Dixielandjazz@ml.islandnet.com
> http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz
>