Tops of the Pops....

[Erik Mesoy]

Three words for you: WTH please elaborate.

Che Guava nailed it (with exception of the social democrats), but in case you need more explanation, it's on Wikipedia too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Summary: If you agree with the loss of civil liberties for those you don't sympathize with, who is going to protest when your turn comes?

Full text:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

 

[Che Guava]

Aaaaah. Thanks for the back story.

Stories on civil liberties going downhill in Britain never cease to amaze me. And if it bothers me this much, I can't imagine how you guys across the pond must feel...

 

[Rambuchan]

You may worry about us, but spare a thought for the Dutch, who have a much longer and prouder liberal tradition. They're seeing that going to the wind too...

 

[Kozmos]

What they do in Britan has little impact on me....nor can I have impact on Britain in any kind of way, at least in the near future. The power of mindless masses is negligible.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Good grief. We're close to setting a new record high for hysterical overreaction here.

We have a reform of licensing laws designed to make drink and music require just a single license, rather than two, and we get poems about the Nazis taking the Jews away ? In what sense is this appropriate, as opposed to an offensive belittling of the suffering in Nazi Germany ?

C'mon, Ram has even given some of the counter argument links there in the OP, but I can't believe you guys have read them - I rather think the fact that Feargal Sharkey is supporting this ought to remove at least some of the fear of Nazis at the door... And I think the first line in the official response reads "A great deal of misinformation has been circulating about our modernisation of the licensing laws in England and Wales..." - though I bet they hadn't encountered quite the level we're managing here.

It's not that scary... New law gets introduced. BBC don't read it. BBC don't realise they need the correct license for performing music. BBC have screwed up. BCC realise this, and apply for a license. Quite where do the Nazis enter into this ?

The sale of alcoholic drink and the provision of live music to audiences both required licenses before - this is a consolidation of those two seperate licenses, not a new encroachment on your civil liberties. Grief, you'll be telling me next that the need to have a driving license and a TV license are significant encroachments on your civil liberties, and more clear signs that we have a fascist government.

...the verge of seeing one of our treasured cultural assets being legislated out of existence....

At this point, I can only assume you're having a laugh, or are just being plain daft.

 

[Rambuchan]

At this point, I can only assume you're having a laugh, or are just being plain daft.

I was getting the bills mixed up as I pointed out here.

Anyway, you're right about your assessment of what's happened with all this. You've entered some sensible comment into the thread compared to what was happening before. Thanks a lot.

(OT: If you got that recommended album by now, why not send me a PM to let me know how it went down, brotherman?)

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Actually, the Dead Presidents are still sitting in my "ready for next purchase" bit (or whatever they call it) @Amazon (along with some more Nanci Griffith and Takacs Quartet, just so that I don't get too overcome with the funkiness of it all ....). Will purchase it when I come back from my week off in France next week.

I did like the description of Top of the Pops being a "Treasured Cultural Asset", though. I suspect that this might one of your occasional weird aberrations in taste (cf The Gnome Incident). You do know, don't you, that no-one watches it now, and, that seeing TotP re-runs just lets you realise you shouldn't have bothered watching it back then either ?

 

[Rambuchan]

Hey, I think the Proms is a load of crap, but it's still a "treasured cultural asset" to most Brits out there. Nothing to do with my tastes here.

And I appreciate that it's largely ignored these days. But it was a cultural tour de force back in the days when you were funky. *ducks*

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Ah, you meant the Proms ? Where the Albert Hall (or wherever it's held) already had the correct license, and therefore was in no danger of anything at all, except possibly being able to server alcohol more freely than previously ?

Mind you, quite a rowdy lot at the Proms, I guess, and adding alcohol to the mix might just mean Kensington's Burning Tonight!

 

[Rambuchan]

I'm talking about tastefulness and 'cultural assets' now, not licenses.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Well, IMHO the Last Night of the Proms is appalling, but the rest of it I think is a very impressive cultural occasion. I'm guessing you've never been ?

 

[Rambuchan]

No never, but I've been to the Albert Hall for all kinds of other things, classical, traditional and otherwise. Of course it's the blatant nationalistic hootanany that the Proms presides over that I've got a problem with, not just the music. (Read here: Brainwashing rant rant rant).

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Of course it's the blatant nationalistic hootanany that the Proms presides over that I've got a problem with

That'll be the Last Night. Totally agree with you on that one.

 

[7ronin]

I am pleased to note that my country has not cornered the market on either nuttiness or fun killing lawyers.

 

[Whomp]

Top of the Pops needs a license, but a War in Iraq does not ???
Happy 21st century to all !!

private message to Whomp: watch your teeth !!

Happy 21st to you as well Mister.
and BTW...what teeth?

Well Summerfest will be in Milwaukee in a month. Cheap beer, good music, Harley riders, general rabble rousing. No limits.
How about you UKers come here and we can stay up all night rocking and rolling?

 

[EdwardTking]

BBC don't realise they need the correct license for performing music.

I fail to see why, in a free society, anyone should need
a license for performing music on their own property.

The law should be repealed.

 

[Atropos]

I fail to see why, in a free society, anyone should need
a license for performing music on their own property.

I'd like to hear you repeat that statement right after your next door neighbours' bagpipe practice kept you up all night just before an exam.

You have the right to do whatever you like on your own property if it doesn't harm others. Performing loud music can potentially harm others.

 

[EdwardTking]

I'd like to hear you repeat that statement right after your next door neighbours' bagpipe practice kept you up all night just before an exam.

You have the right to do whatever you like on your own property if it doesn't harm others. Performing loud music can potentially harm others.

That may be a reason for having a law against and/or legal rights to sue against unnecessary excessive noise that constitutes a general nuisance.
However it is no reason for a law requiring one to pay the government in advance for permission. My point stands.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

It's a reasonable point, Edward. But you don't need a license for playing your own CDs, or strumming your guitar in your bedroom. Various amendments were made to the bill to try to avoid penalising the single folk guitarist performing in the town hall type of situation. However, if you take your line, then it's difficult to prevent an operator using any building & playing all night music, each night, at rave levels until the authorities manage to record sufficient evidence to close them down at that location. And by that time, he's had weeks of easy profit, and weeks of potentially ruining peoples' lives (possibly as much by the influx of attendees as by the music itself). And then rinse & repeat.

The difficulty is in framing a law to enable that sort of thing to be tackled, without it inadvertently hitting all sorts of other situations which you don't intend, and which the local authorities just don't want to be hassled with.

(PS I presume you realise that this aspect wasn't fundamentally changed by this bill i.e. that you also needed a license to stage a show before ?)