Tops of the Pops....

Rambuchan

The Funky President
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
13,560
Location
London, England
.....is now a criminal enterprise and has been broadcasting illegally since November 2005.

Yes folks, I'm not kidding you. Laws designed to entrap 'terrorist' and 'anarchist' gatherings have instead ensnared the longest running, popular music show in the UK. The programme that first brought screaming teenagers to small screens with regularity, which helped make London 'swing' in the 60s, which helped bring Punk and Reggae music to the world in the 70s, which flaunted the new-Romantics of the 80s and continues to be the premier Pop music show - is now illegal.

It's seeking an exemption from the new laws and its seems they may get it. But that's not certain yet.

This has come about from an extension of an already long tradition in the UK (mainly by conservative governments, whether they are called Labour or not) to bring in regulations on how public gatherings are conducted. This tradition stretches back a long, long way into British history. It takes in the Agricultural Revolution, the Luddite Movement, the Miner's Strikes, outdoor raves, then gatherings of fundamentalist preachers and now ---- Top of the Pops.

If one drew a graph of all this, with time on one axis and 'number of public gathering regulations introduced' on the other, you'd have a veritable hockey stick.

These regulations have all been designed to make our lives "safer", to reduce "crime and disorder", "anti-social behaviour" and "public nuisance". However, all they have really done is make democratic protests, live entertainment and legitimate industrial action far harder to put on.

This particular law which ensnares the BBC seems to stem bizarrely from the Late Licensing laws of 2003 (links below), which reinstated our right to not be kicked out from pubs and onto the streets at 11pm (not that many places have found the cost of the license to be a viable option). So why the hell has this supposedly liberal public measure resulted in a such a restrictive entertainment atmosphere? Can someone please explain that one to me?

Now here's the news link....

The BBC is not allowed to invite the public to watch shows such as Top of the Pops and Strictly Dance Fever because it does not have entertainment licences for its studios.

The Licensing Act, which came into force in November, requires an entertainment licence for all dramas, sitcoms, music shows and dance shows that are performed before a studio audience made up of the public. This means that all recordings of Top of the Pops made since November 24 have been illegal.

The BBC is liable for a fine of up to £20,000, but Hammersmith & Fulham council, the local authority that would enforce the law, has said it will turn a blind eye. The council had told the BBC that its studios did not require a licence.

But the corporation has had to cancel all public tickets issued for the next two weekends until it receives a temporary event notice, which can only be issued after ten working days. It is also applying for a permanent licence for its studios.

A BBC spokesman said that live shows performed outside BBC TV Centre such as the Proms would not be affected because the premises were already licensed.


Times Online.

One element well worth pointing out is this:
In determining these levels, the Secretary of State has had to have regard to local authority concerns about public safety at, and nuisance to, local residents caused by these temporary events.

More specifics on the Licensing Act of 2003
Yet notice that it was not local residents, complaining about a public nuisance, that brought the programme's newly found illegality to the management's attention. Oh no. It was BBC lawyers, checking the fine print of this new act (which was interminably vague).

So whose benefit are these laws serving? The residents don't particularly seem to give a damn in this instance. And thanks to this creeping authoritarianism from our govt, we've been taken to the verge of seeing one of our treasured cultural assets being legislated out of existence. Like I say, it's going to take an exemption (ie. double standards) to save it.

What's next? The Queen's Garden Tea Party? Old Ladies' Bingo?



More reading...

http://www.culture.gov.uk/alcohol_and_entertainment/licensing_act_2003/

http://lawzone.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=112691&d=205&h=207&f=259

...and please post your thoughts on this.
 
Rambuchan said:
...and please post your thoughts on this.
Am I still allowed to go to the toilet when I go home or do I need to apply for a license first? I'm not planning to engage in any terrorist activity while I'm taking a pee, although that doesn't seem to make any difference anymore. I might be contemplating anti-government thoughts though - will that get me sent to Guantanamo Bay? Oh screw it, I think I'll just stay in Japan.
 
Enkidu Warrior said:
Am I still allowed to go to the toilet when I go home or do I need to apply for a license first? I'm not planning to engage in any terrorist activity while I'm taking a pee, although that doesn't seem to make any difference anymore.
There's the factory of weapons of mass destruction right there.
Chemical plant and all.
UN won't inspect, negotiate and save your lazy bum bottom.
We are going to get you.
Don't think a second you are safe, boy.

To actual Rambuchan's thread subject, it's getting more and more ridiculous every day
to the point that I can see one day we won't be laughing so hard anymore.
 
Rambuchan said:
One element well worth pointing out is this:
Yet notice that it was not local residents, complaining about a public nuisance, that brought the programme's newly found illegality to the management's attention. Oh no. It was their lawyers, checking the fine print of this new act (which was interminably vague).
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Presumably the lawyers were instructed by the residents and were therefore acting on their behalf? I seriously doubt a lawyer read the fine print and then went looking for people to whom it applied.
 
PrinceOfLeigh said:
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Presumably the lawyers were instructed by the residents and were therefore acting on their behalf? I seriously doubt a lawyer read the fine print and then went looking for people to whom it applied.
No man, when did you ever hear of the BBC's lawyers working for the local residents? What I'm saying is: The local residents were blissfully unaware that they had this "public nuisance" in their midst. They didn't care less. It took the BBC's lawyers, with their own diligence on new govt legislation, to inform Top of the Pops producers that they are now criminals.
 
Rambuchan said:
No man, when did you ever hear of the BBC's lawyers working for the local residents? What I'm saying is: The local residents were blissfully unaware that they had this "public nuisance" in their midst. They didn't care less. It took the BBC's lawyers, with their own diligence on new govt legislation, to inform Top of the Pops producers that they are now criminals.
I see, I read their lawyers to mean the lawyers acting for the residents. My mistake :hatsoff:

Top of the Pops has been a "public nuisance" for years. 'Live show' my @$$!

Unfortunately it's another example of this country's slide into Red Tape Oblivion. The sad thing is I can see no way of combatting it :(
 
That Tv show on channel 4 with the fella that was Lilly Savage also has been done in because of this law.
 
My thoughts - The Labour government is an authoritarian adminsistration that wishes to regulate every moment of our lifes:mad:
 
ComradeDavo said:
My thoughts - The Labour government is an authoritarian adminsistration that wishes to regulate every moment of our lifes:mad:
Given that you know about them than me, do you think the Lib Dems would be any better? Rightly or wrongly I've always percieved them to be Red Tape Merchants.
 
PrinceOfLeigh said:
Given that you know about them than me, do you think the Lib Dems would be any better? Rightly or wrongly I've always percieved them to be Red Tape Merchants.
Alot better. After all they are Liberal, which generally means protecting peoples civil liberties - ID cards being the number 1 example of the Lib Dems being the main opposistion to a bill that seeks to regulate people's lives more than ever before.
 
I should clarify something from the OP:

I said that the programme's illegality came about from new laws designed to deal with "terrorists" and "anarchists". What I should have said is that it came out of this long tradition of such laws, but the particular law here is the Licensing Act 2003 (aka the late drinking bill). Sorry about that.
 
ComradeDavo said:
Alot better. After all they are Liberal, which generally means protecting peoples civil liberties - ID cards being the number 1 example of the Lib Dems being the main opposistion to a bill that seeks to regulate people's lives more than ever before.
I agree that Lib Dems are at the forefront of UK politics when it comes to protecting the rights of citizens. But technically the law mentioned in the OP protects the rights of citizens not to have their lives effected by noise, ect from another. In protecting rights of citizens or employees ect, there has to be a certain amount of Red Tape. That's why I accused the Lib Dems of being Red Tape Merchants.

However, you are my "Go To Guy" when it comes to UK Politics and so is my assumption (re: the Lib Dems) unfounded you think?
 
I hate the show anyway.
 
PrinceOfLeigh said:
I agree that Lib Dems are at the forefront of UK politics when it comes to protecting the rights of citizens. But technically the law mentioned in the OP protects the rights of citizens not to have their lives effected by noise, ect from another. In protecting rights of citizens or employees ect, there has to be a certain amount of Red Tape. That's why I accused the Lib Dems of being Red Tape Merchants.

However, you are my "Go To Guy" when it comes to UK Politics and so is my assumption (re: the Lib Dems) unfounded you think?
Well, there is always 'red tape', I tend to think that the Lib Dems are probably best as dealing with it the most sensibly. I mean i've heard my MP speak on a few red tape issues last election where he certainally had more sense and logic than the other candidates.

But as i've said, they are a 'Liberal' party, and when it comes to stuff liek this the Liberal approach would be to make things like Top Of the Pops exempt.
 
What makes this particular program different from others? What I mean to say is, why is it linked with public gatherings? I'm not familiar with the format or why anyone (laywers, citizens gov't) would have a problem with it...
 
Cleric said:
I hate the show anyway.
Four words for you: First they came for...
 
Erik Mesoy said:
Four words for you: First they came for...

Three words for you: WTH please elaborate.
 
First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller
 
Che Guava said:
What makes this particular program different from others? What I mean to say is, why is it linked with public gatherings? I'm not familiar with the format or why anyone (laywers, citizens gov't) would have a problem with it...
It's location is all Che. The particular BBC building is located in White City, which is in the London borough council of Hammersmith & Fulham. This council is obliged to roll out the laws, although I'm not quite up to speed on the different obligations different councils have with this legislation.
 
Back
Top Bottom