Rambuchan
The Funky President
.....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....
One element well worth pointing out is this:
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.
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:
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).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
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.