Police clamp down on outbreak of peace

I thought you would be interested in this; written by a party organiser about their busted event on Friday :

Words cannot express how we feel, it’s hard to know where to begin. The time, effort and money of so many people wasted. Everyone involved put their heart and soul into our summer gathering. What happened has left us all in shock and absolutely gutted.
But don’t worry we will bounce back! The Frogz will keep on hopping!
Our private members only party was stopped in a way which we believe to be illegal. At 12:04pm on Friday 13th June, Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was signed by Assistant Chief Constable Steve Mortimore. We were then served with it at about 2:00pm.
Friday 13th lived up to its name, what an awful morning. After more than 2 weeks of gathering and moving decoration, lighting, geodomes, marquees, carpets, firewood and a mountain of other equipment. Followed by a week of constructing and building, we had made such a beautiful outdoor environment that was ready to go!
We thought we had thought of everything in putting on our summer gathering, our annual private members party (which was also celebrating 3 birthdays of members of our tribe) and that we were completely legal. We had full permission from the farmer who owned the land, who trusted us and understood what we were trying to do. We had visited all the local people, spoken to them personally about the gathering and gave them personal invites so that they could come along and a telephone number to call if there were any problems.
A lot of time was spent researching information used in the planning of our private party. Everything from the amount of toilets recommended by health and safety, fire points, medical staff and stewarding thru to the licensing and legal implications of the party.
Under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, the Licensing Section undertakes the licensing of Entertainment at premises within the borough of South Somerset.
An Entertainment Licence is required for Public Music, Public Dancing and Indoor Sports.
There are certain exemptions for not having a licence, these are as follows:-
 If the premises holds a liquor licence issued by the Magistrates Court under the Licensing Act 1968, the licensee is entitled to have two performers on at any time with that period of opening. This could be a D.J playing music or a duo.
 If the function is a private party, then an entertainment licence is not required
 Any music (1) in a place of public religious worship or (2) performed as an incident of a religious meeting or service
 Entertainment held in a pleasure fair
 An entertainment which takes place wholly or mainly in the open air.

As you can see we were exempted from having a public entertainment license by the fact that we were putting on a private party by personal invitation only, with 24 hour security there to keep it that way.
The police said that they had grounds to serve Section 63 because we “could not guarantee that a member of the public (i.e. an non-tribe member) could not gain entry to the private party” It is absolutely impossible to guarantee that something won’t happen. So by their thinking it is impossible to have a private party.
We will be contacting the council to confirm that we did not need a party entertainment license as soon as they open on Monday morning.
When we were served the Section 63 (see below) we were ordered to leave the land and the surrounding area by 6pm, giving us 4 hours to dismantle something that had taken many people over a week to put together. we are talking about 8 geodesic domes, 3 circus round tents, 4 marquees, a pond, 100 hay bails, solar showers, sauna, 20ft x 16ft x 18ft scaffolding stage, pyramid, solar cinema, market stalls, food stalls, stone carving workshop, children’s area, over half a mile of water piping, 250 litre water bowsers, fire extinguishers, lasers, lights, safety fencing, flushing toilet blocks, firewood etc. etc.) If we didn’t remove our vehicles, equipment and property we could be arrested. At this point a yawning gapping chasm opened up in our stomachs. Absolutely gutted. Exhausted from all the work putting it all together and getting only 2-3 hours sleep each night, we tried to piece ourselves back together, still reeling in the shock we began the sickening process of packing up something that we had only just finished putting together.
At about 5pm we had taken down quite a bit of our stuff, but the police were back and this time they were stating that they were now searching for any sound equipment and generators and would be confiscating them!! Because they had read on the message board of our website that we were encouraging people to meet in preparation to move to an alternative site. We immediately stated that this was not true and took steps to stop things going any further by closing down the message board and replacing it with a message saying that “there will be absolutely no summer gathering taking place”. The police had already taken the license plate numbers of all the vehicles on the site, but now they were searching the vehicles too.
The sound equipment and generators were seized and loaded into some of the 6 police riot vans that were on the scene. (There were more police there than there were of us!)
The police were informed that we had no intentions of moving else where and that our message board was open to free speech and did not necessarily reflect the tribes opinions or intentions as a whole. We also informed them that we felt that they were breaching the original agreement if we cleared the site and move away we would be left alone.
We really really wanted to have our gathering, we even offered the compromise of allowing the police to impound all sound and power equipment for the duration of our gathering so that our tribe, our family could be allowed to camp together in a field that we had permission to be in. They would not even consider this offer and repeated that we had to leave the site and surrounding area and not return within 7 days.
If you paid for full membership with tribe of frog and feel that our private summer gathering should have been allowed and would like to let the authorities know then you can contact the man that signed the Section 63 order that stopped it from happening, at this address below;
Steve Mortimore
Assistant Chief Constable
Avon and Somerset Constabulary
PO Box 37
Portishead
Bristol
BS20 8QJ

We have a lot of work to do to sort out the mess that this has left behind. The hiring of all the scaffolding, sound systems, generators, water bowsers, toilets, fencing, etc. etc. is an unavoidable cost that has to be paid for out of our collective membership fees. We will refund money to any one which wishes to cancel their membership. If you would like to get a refund of your membership fee then send an email to; refunds@tribeoffrog.com and we will contact you with details of what to do. For those of you that wish to remain a full paid up member, your personal invitation will remain valid for our next party/gathering.
We can’t express enough to everyone how sorry we are that this happened, we are sorry for all the wasted time, the wasted days people took off work to get there and the wasted journeys too. It’s awful :(
We are seeking legal advice. It would be great if there was someone in tribe out there that could help. Are you or friend or member of your family a solicitor that is willing to help?, if so please get in touch with us.

*** PHOTOS & FILM FOOTAGE REQUEST ***
The police did a lot of filming while they were there, we are going to ask for copies of all the tapes made. We would also like to collect together any video and photos you have. if you took pictures and recorded the event in anyway please get in touch.
It is still legal to hold private parties and private gatherings in this countries, at least for now, but we should all be aware of a new bill that the government is trying to make law, you can read it here

Under the current wording of this proposed bill there could be a £20,000 fine and up to 6 months in prison for some of the following breaches of the new law if it is passed:
 Any private wedding, corporate reception or party that employs a musician to perform would need a licence - failure to obtain one could put the organisers in the dock.
 Do you run a recording or a broadcast studio? Better get a licence, or the police will be banging on the door.
 Are you going bell ringing or carol singing? Think twice about it if you don’t have a licence.

And if you want proof that the authorities will use this sort of power once they have it at their disposal then you just have to read this excerpt from a letter sent to the landlord of a London Pub, fined thousands of pounds for breaching the current rules that ban dancing in pubs that don’t have a “dancing licence”.
“Dancing could be described as the rhythmic moving of the legs, arms and body usually changing positions within the floor space available and whether or not accompanied by musical support.”
Using this definition of criminal behaviour the authorities observed customers swaying around in the pub in question on several separate occasions, and a hefty fine soon came through the letter box.
Seems a little mad to us!
We must not let these laws to infringe on our rights to gather peacefully at safe children-friendly family orientated private social events.

‘What Past? Whose Past - Who Owns Stonehenge?
University of Reading: School of Continuing Education: Town Hall Lectures 2003:

This is one of the many lectures, organised by the University of Reading: School of Continuing Education, spring Season

Have contributed the use of a photograph of 'stonehenge and barbed wire' for use in the publisitity for this event. Flyers posters etc.

I am so glad that there continues to be such debate about these subjects. Our heritage is under continued threat, from those authorities that feel we have few rights over antiquaties and ' OUR ' history.

http://www.extra.rdg.ac.uk/events/displays/publectur.asp

Title: The Town Hall Lectures 2003: ‘What Past? Whose Past’

Description: Professor Barbara Bender of University College London and author of ‘Stonehenge: Making Space’ and ‘Landscape: Politics and Perspectives’ will discuss how the study of key sites, including Stonehenge, can lead to conflict or, sometimes, reconciliation in ‘What Past? Whose Past?’

Location: The Town Hall, Reading Start time: 7.30pm

Date: 17:3:2003

Ticket Price: Ticket Price Concession: -

Contact: Hexagon Box Office Phone: 0118 960 6060

Intended audience: This event is open to members of the public

http://www.reading.ac.uk




















Stonehenge Yahoo Groups, about all this .......

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stonehengeentertainmentsdiscussion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Stonehenge2003Celebration

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stonehengepeace

Subscribe to stonehengeentertainmentsdiscussion
Powered by groups.yahoo.com

An account of the march to Geaorges Hill, Surrey, on Saturday the 3rd of April 1999, to commenerate Gerard Winnstanley and the 350th Anniversary of the Diggers, (1st April 1649)

“The work we are going about is this, to dig up George hill and the waste ground there abouts, and to sow Corn, and to our breads together by the sweat of our brows.”
Gerard Winnstanley & 14 others.
The true Levellers standard advance, April 1649


The Diggers march set out from Walton-on-Thames at just after 12:30pm on saturday. The point of the march was to comemerate the 350th Anniversary of the Diggers who first set out to “claimthe land as a common treaury for all”. And to erect a stone, in honour of Gerard Winstanley, at George Hill in Surrey (just outside London) which is currently claimed by ‘St Georges golf course’.
At 12:30. the Town Crier of Brighton and Hove rang her bell, and in clear tones quoted Gerard Winstanely from his “New Years gift for Parliament and armie” in 1650.
“Yet my mind was not at rest, because nothing was acted, and thoughts did run in me, that words and writings were all nothing and, must die, for action is the life of all, and if thou does not act, thou dost nothing.”
And with this the event was in motion. People met and talked, and told each other new thing, and the stone which we were to erect was there, laid out on a very adequate and solid cart. “The cart was built especially for the purpose”, the craftman told me, as I joined the cart pullers in taking the stone to the gathering point just round the corner. Though the stone is quite narrow, the cart was made out of what looked like a wheel base from a Morris Minor, and so we had to take it on the road as it wouldn’t fit on the pavement. We stood in the street and waited for the mass of the march to assemble in the road. The banners were raised and the motorists calmed down. We set off on to the main rod leading to Georges’ hill.
Spirits were high, and the march set off on the four mile walk with a sense of purpose. I counted about 280 marchers present (281 first count, 282 second count). Many people dressed in ‘traditional costume’ and quite a few carried shovels. There was a wide variety of people walking. Miles Halliwell was also present. He played the part of Gerard Winstanley in the movie about the Diggers movent in the middle of the 1600’s.
There were a two small arguments with motorists on the course of the march, both were resolved amicably once the motorists were made aware of the purpose of the walk, but other than this the march went without insident, and ecery body was very freindly and positive.
The police directed the traffic.
We arrived at our destination at 15:45. The gates were unlocked and there was minimalsecurity presence. Tthere were several police vans on the far side of the green, they stayed where they were while we strode confidently onto the land we were claiming and the police and security left those assembled alone and we assembled next to wooded glade ‘on some one elses bit !
It was difficult work pulling that cart, and it had been a privelidge to participate in taking that monument to its’ proposed site. It gave me enough time to soak up what I have been learning, research, and living recently, and to reflect on the significance of our actions today. We struggled together to pull the monument to the site, but how the original Diggers must have struggled when they gave us a reason to celebrate and commerate their noble and visionary cause.
I assisted in the final act of up-ending the cart in order to display the monument to those gathered. And once the stonecarver had balanced the monument, the Town Crier called our attention with more words also said to be from Gerald Winstanley from ‘a bill of account of the most remarkeable sufferings that the Diggers have met with from the 1st April 1649....
“ ......And here I end, having put my arm as far as my strength will go to advance Righteousness; I have writ, I have acted, I have peace; now I must wait to see the spirit do his work in the hearts of others, and whether England shall be the first land, or some others, wherein truth shall sit down in triumph”.
And then other people were invited to sing and ‘rattle on’. The first to speak was a man who was concerned with the issues surrounding todays’ action. We were all disappointed to here that the stone would not be dug in today because it probably would not be very long before the St. Georges’ golf course would have it removed or trashed or both. The golf course ‘allowing’ the stone to stand would probably present the possibilty that people may visit the monument, and this might present a problem to the ‘owners’ of ‘non-members’ demanding access to the land on a more regular basis, and I don’t think that they would stand for that(!) Our spirits were lifted though on the news that the stone will be going to West Horsley, which is apparently the town of Parson Platts’, who gave the Diggers a bloody hard time during the land reclaimation, he is said to have had a lot to do with the hatred of the church toward the Diggers. And would probably turn in his grave if he knew that the memorial stone commemerating his rival was to stand in his ‘home town’. But he need not turn for too long because the stone will only be there temporarily before it moves to (hopefully) a permanent position at George hill site.
The speaker also told us how letters will be sent to the St. Georges hill residents association to try to recieve their approval on the placing of the stone, because it is not the golf course who object to the memorial but the residents association. And not suprisingly so, because they probably aware of how they can be seen as the ‘modern day’ equivelant of the wealthy land owners in the time of Winstanley....Does much truly change over time?
Other speakers also had their word, and the crowd listened intently, even through the battery powered p.a.system which had been brought along by a very ‘up for it’ individual (it was having problems with the damp enviroment, but warmed up after a while - nice one J). There was a very audible resitle by Miles Halliwell of the words and quotes of Gerard Winstanley. There were mentions on the ruling of Lord Irvine (House of Lords, 4th march ‘99) relating to “using the highway for the action of passing and re-passing and anything incidental to that action”. There were songs, and people met and talked.
Soon the time came for this action to finish. Some people then left Georges hill while over half of the group went further into the estate, and into the residential area in order to re-claim some of the land ‘owned’ by the wealthy locals, where they hoped to set up a Diggers camp.
I did not follow straight away but stopped to carry on my conversations with some of the new freinds that I had met. And then I also set off into the Birch woods and the golf greens to find the Diggers camp.
I was ‘gob-smacked’ by the place. What a beautiful area, and an especially beautiful area to live in if ‘one’ can afford to. I hadn’t realised how large the area was. I ran across the greens and through the woods, sweating but not tired, and passed by golfers who looked at me as though I was an alien or something out of the ordinary (which I suppose I was, especially if ‘one’ was to look at my shoes, which revealed my life on the bread line). As I ran passed the golfers I politely said my “Good afternoons” and my “How do you do?”(es), but was ignored. If they don’t show me that they noticed me, then obviously I don’t exist in their eyes. Not one of them returned my polite enquiries - I generally find that snobs are rude and ignorant, so I didn’t take offence at their problem.
“Excuse me, sir”, I said to a golfer roughly of my own age group, “I don’t suppose you’ve seen a bunch of ‘hippies’ come passed here in the last ten minutes?”.
“Yes”, he replied, pointing towards the car park of the ‘tea house’, “I saw a large group of people going up that way”.
I said my thanks to him, and before running on I paused to say something to a woman who I can only presume was his mother, “It must be so wonderful for you to be able to come and play golf here, it’s very beautiful. There’s nowhere like this to play golf where I come from. You are very lucky !”. I sid this to her in the vague hope that she might notice the difference in perseption between us, but she didn’t look at me, and said quite simply, “Yes we are, aren’t we!”
Maybe I wouldn’t see her as a stuck up cow if she had only looked at me and seen me smiling at her in a freindly manner. My attention was drawn to a few people who were calling me from the club house and gesturing off into the trees passed the car park. As I approached them I could here that they were shouting, “Through the car park, turn right, up the hill, and turn left!”. I went in the direction that they had told me to go, wondering whether they were actually sending me to the main exit. These thoughts very quickly left my mind, and my running slowed to a walk as I used the private road to go up the hill that I had been directed up. I found myself walking through a ‘residential utopia’, the likes of which I had never seen before. The area looked very familiar but only in the sense that it reminded me of the type of place which I would like to think that we should all be able to live in, a clean space with some nature around, with houses big enough to allow communal living, each house could be an alternative centre in its’ own right in this type of setting.
It is a quite place. No cars. Trees full of bird song. It’s a shame that only the select few get to see this place, let alone live in it ! So I pressed on, now more determined to find the camp.
I came to the top of the hill where the road forks left and right, I was unsure which way to go for fear of being ‘captured’ and booted back into ‘the outside world’. Within seconds of arriving at the junction I saw a car coming my way, and I could make out that this was a St. Georges security car. For a moment I thought that ‘they’ would escort me to the exit, but on flagging down the driver and enquiring as to the whereabouts of the camp, to my suprise the security guard said, “Hop in, I’ll give you a lift there”, so in I hopped, and suddenly there I was.....at the gateway to the Diggers camp.
Drawing on my youth experience I climbed under the gate, being sure not to cause any ‘criminal damage’ on my way in, and found to my joy that tents and yurts (don’t know how to spell that one) and a large kitchen were already being erected. A fire was just being started, and the mood was very freindly and relaxed. I had expected that by now, what with my late arrival, I would arrive to see people being turfed off by the security and plod. Not so. In fact quite the opposite. Just a couple of police and security and well over a hundred people ‘digging in’.
We formed a human chain to move supplies and possesions in quickly, whilst people began preparing food in the by now built kitchen area, and others sang songs around the by now roaring fire.
At 17:40 two inspectors turned up to check it out. They pointed out that damage may be occuring to the gate, and so some people found some materials to create a makeshift stile. That (I think) was about all they had to grumble about, and they were gone within ten minutes. Later on a ‘local’ man turned up at the gate and exchanged pleasentries with his new neighbours. The whole scene was a very relaxed atmosphere, and as it came closer to darkness I felt that I really didn’t want to leave the site, and would have liked to stay for at least a couple of days.
Unfortunately though this was not possible, and it was sonn time for me and my friend to leave. We left the camp at 19:55, as the fire began to roar and the merriments continued. We managed to get a lift back to the start point of the march from where we made our way back home.......What an enlightening day. The event made such a lot of sense to me, and through participating in the action I am left feeling closer to and with a clearer understanding of the reasons for it, and not only a clearer picture of the historical events, but also a greater understanding of the relevance of our action.
It seems true to me that social issues and struggles that were alive in the 1600’s are still relevant in society today, without knowing what has gone before in history I only have an understanding, but after participating in the action that we did today and learning more about the history of the land and its’ people I feel like that understanding is growing and the new kknowledge that I have has (again raised my confidence and awareness.
After todays action I feel inspired, and am thirsty for more knowledge, understanding, and action. And I thank everyone who took part for the passive nature of the demonstration, nice one everyone !!

“They hang the man and flog the woman
that steal the goose from off the common,
But let the greater villain loose
that steal the common from the goose.” (traditional rhyme)

drugs and clubs: (a rough guide to your rights)

Entering the club
Clubs have the right to search anyone entering their premises, and must provide searchers of both sexes. They can refuse entry to anyone who refuses a search and can only insist on searching outside clothes, pockets or bags.

They must conduct the search in a decent manner and with respect to the individual. They cannot insist on a more intimate search without your permission. Legally, they can only conduct strip searches and searches inside clothes with your permission in private with an independent witness.

Only the police or customs and excise officials are empowered to search you without agreement - if a door supervisor searches inside your clothes or performs a strip search without your permission they may be charged with assault.

Inside the Club:
Some clubs are reknowned for having a 'blind-eye' approach to soft drug taking. Don't abuse this privilege - skin up somewhere discreet and don't flaunt it around - it'll only get the club closed otherwise. Other clubs will hound you out like you're a mass murderer, so check it out first. Remember, even if you're only smoking a spliff it is illegal and you might face being arrested as well as being thrown out of the club.

Commercial Clubs:
What you'll find inside varies considerably, depending on the clubs and the ruthlessness of the owners. Some commercial clubs will do everything they can to extract as much money from the punters as possible, while others treat clubbers with respect.

If you don't find all the below provided we'd suggest you take your custom elsewhere or complain to the club and relevant authorities (details below):

Cheap bottled water available at the bar with free unrestricted access to cold drinking. Some clubs have been known to charge up to £3 for a bottle of water while turning the cold water taps off, or reducing them to a warm trickle. Avoid them and report them - they are endangering people's lives.

Adequate ventilation and a chill-out space. Some clubs have been known to turn off the air conditioning to boost drinks sales, or to overcrowd the dancefloors. Avoid.

Provide a competent first aider on the premises. If something goes wrong you want to feel that there is help at hand.

Cheap, secure cloakrooms. It's important to be able to have somewhere safe to keep clothes while you dance. Watch out for clubs that charge exorbitant amounts or keep you queuing all night.

Trained, registered door and security staff, preferably wearing name tags. Expect to be treated with civility and friendliness and to see a notice displaying the club's searching and complaints policy.

Complaining:
If you feel you have been ill-treated at a club, try to take down all the details as soon as possible, noting down the names/numbers/description of the people involved and the time of the incident.

If you are unhappy with a search, contact Release who will complain on your behalf.

If the club is failing to provide free water, is overcrowded or has insufficient safety and first aid facilities, complain to the management or get in touch with your local council's Environmental Health Department. Also write in to the club/DJ magazines, post up on the internet and tell your friends - if these clubs are treating people badly it's important to get the word out.

Drugs and Clubs
If you're intending to take drugs when you're out clubbing, try and learn as much as possible about the drugs and the possible risks. If you're trying out a new drug, it's best to do it a club where you feel safe and secure and have friends around. Drugs can effect you differently depending on your physical and mental state.

Try and wear cool clothes for dancing but have some warm clothes for the chilling out and the journey home later. Try and eat before you go out as the food will give you energy for dancing and help line the stomach.

Tell your friends what drugs you're taking and look out for each other - and remember to keep drinking at least a pint of non-alcoholic fluid when you're dancing.

Try not to buy drugs from strangers in clubs - not only is there a great chance you'll get ripped off, but it could be dodgy gear or stuff that's a lot stronger than you're used to.

Be careful if you're mixing your drugs - there's no way to predict how they'll react together and some combinations can be unexpectedly powerful. It's best to stick with one drug and not mix'n'match - and that includes alcohol. If you do take more than one drug, remember that the effects are cumulative and can mount up over the hours.

If you're already on prescribed drugs be careful - some drugs may react strongly with each other.

Some drugs can send you in a shag frenzy, increasing your chances of catching HIV and other sexual transmitted diseased. Use a condom! If you're pregnant, some drugs may have unexpected side-effects and possibly damage your child.

If you're injecting, never inject alone.

Leave the motor at home. Some drugs will still be kicking in hours after you've taken them and your judgement could be at risk. Also bear in mind that the police have recently been targeting people leaving rave clubs.

London Dance Safety produce an excellent free booklet for ravers and are organising awareness events. Call 0207 394 5678 for details.

Related links:
Safer Clubbing Guide - Home Office Guide, 7th March 2002
http://www.drugs.gov.uk/newsandevents/news/clubbing_n/view

Safety on the dancefloor - BBC report, Mar 2002
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1860000/1860119.stm

Eric Mattocks, squatters’ activist,

born may 30 1928; died January 18, 1999

By Steve Platt. Tuesday February 2, 1999. The Guardian

Eric Mattocks, who has died suddenly in his sleep aged 70, was one of the liveliest and best-loved characters in the London squatting movement. A rough, roguish, huge-hearted man, he was a stalwart of the Islington-based Advisory Service for Squatters (ASS) for almost 25 years.
There were few squatting campaigns in that period that did not bear the mark of his practical activism or echo with the sound of his unforgettable laugh.
Brought up in working-class Hackney before and during the second world war, Eric never departed from his roots in London’s East End. He had been a burglar before he was a squatter, and turned the skills he learned in that earlier profession to good use when his own experience of homelessness persuaded him that no one should remain homeless while houses stood empty.
On the few occasions that he could be persuaded to speak about his housebreaking past, he was quick to insist that it was strictly confined to ‘rich people’s houses Kent, Surrey and Blackheath’. He despised ‘nicking off the working class’ and the rise of that sort of mean crime on the estates of Hackney and elsewhere.
There was little that he would not do to help the many vulnerable people who turned to the squatting movement when all else had failed. For his 50th birthday Eric was presented by his squatter friends with the ‘Order of the Golden Crowbar’ (actually a gold spray-painted crowbar) in recognition of the number of squats he had opened up.
The squatting movement of the 1970s and 1980s was at the heart of the political and cultural turbulence that produced, among much else, punks and punk rock. Although described as a ‘proto-punk’ for his anarchic politics and spikey ways by one of his younger fellow activists at ASS, Eric was never a fan of that particular music scene.
At squatters’ benefits he was often to be found taking the money on the door, where, equipped with industrial ear protectors, he would question the eager punters’ sanity in ‘paying good money for that bleedin’ ‘orrible racket’.
He was also legendary in some music circles for once forcing Joe Strummer and his mates in the Clash, then on their way to stardom, to clean up the rubbish outside their squat. It was ‘giving squatters a bad name. I don’t care what bloody pop group they are.’
Mattocks had first become involved in the organised squatting movement around the time of the eviction of the Elgin Avenue squatters in the summer of 1975, when barely a day passed without news of one squat or another hitting the headlines. He became treasurer of the London Squatters Union and was one of the founders of ASS, which he also served as treasurer until his death.
When ASS hit one of its periodic financial crises, it was Eric who raised the money to keep it going; when the organisation was firebombed in 1981, it was Eric who got an emergency telephone line installed and had the centre back in action the next day. He did all this while working as a school gardener for the Inner London Education Authority, where he was an active trade unionist and shop steward.
Perhaps Eric’s greatest triumph was the Greater London Council’s squatters’ amnesty in 1977-78, when some 12,000 squatters in GLC properties were given authorised occupancies. Eric had found a kindred spirit at the GLC in John Snowcill, the senior official with responsibility for squatted properties. The two discovered they had attended the same primary school and formed a close friendship, which was to culminate in the plan for an amnesty. Eric played an essential role in its implementation chewed over with Snowcill at regular Friday sessions in a Waterloo pub.
Among those who turned up to a London Squatters Union meeting in the late 1970s was Catherine, with whom Eric was to form a relationship that lasted for the rest of his life. Their two young children have lost their father, who loved them as dearly as he was loved by others, far too soon.

Licensing Bill 2003

You'll all know of the changes in law, that have generally fucked up, our gatherings outside, Public order act CJA etc …….

Then there was the club licensing rules …… drugs etc and the 'Barry Legg' Act ………

And now, here comes the next one: The Licensing Bill 2003

This is a great overview
http://www.musiclovers.ukart.com/pels.htm

Local Government Association Info
http://www.lga.gov.uk/Briefing.asp?lsection=0&id=SXEF99-A7813934
http://www.lga.gov.uk/Briefing.asp?lsection=0&id=SXEF99-A7814395

Licensing Bill: Summary of key points
http://www.info4local.gov.uk/searchreport.asp?id=13063&frompage=subjects&subject=5

Licensing Bill: Ten archaic laws that will be repealed
http://www.info4local.gov.uk/searchreport.asp?id=13064&frompage=subjects&subject=5

Licensing Bill: Comparison - Existing and new
http://www.info4local.gov.uk/searchreport.asp?id=13065&frompage=subjects&subject=5

Licensing of Live Music in England and Wales
Carol singers will be criminals - without a licence - sign the petition!
http://www.wgma.org.uk/licensing.html

The "Blair Bans Morris" poster page
http://www.beerfordbury.com/BBTWTA/Banmorris.htm


THREAT TO LIVE MUSIC

The Government includes the Licensing Bill in its programme of legislation for the coming session and part of this bill relates to the issue of Public Entertainment Licences. Despite 233 MPs having signed David Heath's Early Day Motion calling for the protection of live music, the proposed measures are draconian to say the least. Hamish Birchall is the advisor to the Musicians Union on public entertainment licensing reform. This is his analysis of the proposed legislation.


Licensing reform and live music

The broad aims of the Licensing Bill are to be welcomed, of course. Deregulation of opening times is likely to reduce binge-drinking, and alcohol-related crime and disorder. However, if all the provisions of this otherwise liberalising Bill were enacted, this would represent the biggest increase in licensing control of live music for over 100 years:

* 110,000 on-licensed premises in England and Wales would lose their automatic right to allow one or two musicians to work. A form of this limited exemption from licensing control dates back to at least 1899.
* Churches outside London would lose their licensing exemption for public concerts.
* Thousands of private events, hitherto exempt, become licensable if 'for consideration and with a view to profit'.
* The same applies to any private performance raising money for charity.
* A new licensing criterion is introduced: the provision of 'entertainment facilities'. This could mean professional rehearsal studios, broadcasting studios etc will be illegal unless first licensed.
* Musicians could be guilty of a criminal offence if they don't check first that premises hold the appropriate authorisation for their performance.
* Likewise someone organising a karaoke night in a pub.
* Buskers similarly potential criminals - unless they perform under a licensing authorisation.
* Church bell ringing could be licensable.
* But... broadcast entertainment on satellite or terrestrial TV, or radio, is to be exempt from licensing under this Bill.

The licensing rationale, where live music is concerned, is essentially to prevent overcrowding and noise nuisance. The government claims their reforms will usher in a licensing regime fit for the 21st century. But surely 21st century planning, safety, noise and crime and disorder legislation can deal effectively with most of the problems associated with live music? Not according to Culture Minister Kim Howells. He says the swingeing increase in regulation is necessary because 'one musician with modern amplification can make more noise than three without'.

Of course, it is true that amplification can make one musician louder than another playing without amplification. But that was true when the two performer exemption was introduced in 1961 and had been true for many years before that. The important question is: does live music present a serious problem for local authorities? Does it justify such an increase in control? The answer is no. The Noise Abatement Society has confirmed that over 80% of noise complaints about pubs are caused by noisy people outside the premises. The remaining percentage is mostly down to noisy recorded music or noisy machinery. In fact, while noisy bands can be a problem, complaints about live music are relatively rare.

In any case, local authorities have powerful legislation to tackle noise breakout from premises. All local authorities can seize noisy equipment, and they can serve anticipatory noise abatement notices. Camden used a noise abatement notice to close the West End musical Umoja earlier this year. One resident's complaints were enough. And the police can close noisy pubs immediately for up to 24 hours. The trouble is, many complainants perceive the legislation as inadequate because their local authority doesn't enforce it effectively.

It looks as if musicians are being made the scapegoat for a problem that is nothing to do with live music. Certainly abolition of the two-performer licensing exemption will do nothing to reduce noise from people outside premises. Rather late in the day, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has just commissioned a study into the noise nuisance potential of the licensing reforms - but the study won't be completed until the Spring of 2003 at the earliest. A classic case of shutting the stable door...

The government says that standardising licensing fees, with no premium for entertainment, removes the disincentive to provide live music. This change is welcome. However, fees are only half the problem. The other half is the potential for unnecessary local authority licence conditions. Earlier this year, Kim Howells warned the Musicians' Union that if it were to lobby for satellite TV to become a licensable entertainment, this would be 'resisted robustly' by the leisure industry. He did not say why, but the reasons are clear.

The industry does not believe government assurances that local authorities will adhere to published guidance over future licence conditions. They fear the cost implications of conditions such as monitored safe capacities, and CCTV. (Two years ago the Home Office warned all local authorities not to impose disproportionate conditions. Few, if any, took notice). Genuine 21st century reform for live music, particularly small-scale performance in pubs and bars, would see England and Wales brought into line with Scotland and Ireland, continental Europe.

Scotland is a good example because public safety and noise is regulated by UK-wide legislation. In that country a typical bar or pub can host live music automatically during permitted hours, provided the music is ancillary to the main business. In New York City, premises of capacity 200 or less are likewise free of a requirement to seek prior authorisation for live music. Noise breakout is strictly monitored by street patrols. In Germany, Finland and Denmark the provision of some live music is assumed when the equivalent of an on-licence is granted. In rural Ireland no permission is need for live music in a pub, and customers would think it very odd to suggest that it be a criminal offence unless first licensed.

The Musicians' Union has argued for reform along Scottish lines for some time. But the government has rejected this option. Our campaign for more live music, particularly in small venues, is supported by the Arts Council, the Church of England, Equity, the English Folk Dance and Song Society and many others. The Union recognises that premises specialising in music, or music and dance (like nightclubs) need the additional controls that licensing provide. But if live music of all kinds is to thrive in small community venues like pubs, an automatic permission, within certain parameters, is essential. We should not treat all musicians as potential criminals. That doesn't sit well with the participation and access agenda of the DCMS.

What you can do

You can write to your MP expressing your concerns at the following address:

House of Commons,
London SW1A 0AA

Sign the petition against the proposed legislation. You can either do so online at http://www.musiclovers.ukart.com or look out for a paper version of the same petition at your local club or session.

and

Some of us in England and Wales who hold the making of music important, rather badly need the active support of all those that care for music. Our Government has not listened to us, they may very well listen to the views of potential overseas tourists. Especially as the Bill in question is quite bizarrely coming from the Department of CULTURE, media and sport, which is the same department that deals with promoting TOURISM. It would be a great help if you could inform your media, of this discrimination of all (but only) LIVE music, taking place, not by the Taliban but in the 'mother of all Parliaments', it could prove most helpful and be much appreciated.

The Licensing Reform Bill can be found on the UK Parliamentary site. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/pabills.htm

Government Minister Tessa Jowell, in the press release and at the launch of the Bill. "In short this is a Bill for the public, a Bill for industry and a Bill for commonsense."

Can the introduction of measures in a Bill, that 'can be argued', such as the Schedule 1 definitions of what is 'entertainment'- in a Bill we were all looking to finally settle such long-running arguments - really be described by the Minister in charge as "commonsense"? Schedule 1. Definitions of what is licensable - i.e. 'entertainment' that will be not be 'permitted' without the exact nature of the 'entertainment' specified in advance and official local authority permission being obtained. I'm sure that if you have looked at this it will all be perfectly clear now? SIGH..

I would also draw your attention to clause 134 (1)(a) of the main Bill, which will make criminal any musician who performs anywhere without first checking that the place is licensed/authorised for the performance. Clause 137 allows a defence of 'due diligence', but basically it means that if the musician doesn't check first he/she could face heavy fines and a jail sentence.

The following from Hamish Birchall Musicians' Union adviser - public entertainment licensing reform 020 7267 7700, 07973 519245

Yesterday the government published the Licensing Bill which, if enacted, would make criminal the provision of most live music in England and Wales, unless first licensed. As predicted, broadcast entertainment on satellite or terrestrial TV is exempt i.e. MTV. The proposals represent the most significant increase in live music licensing for over 100 years.

According to Culture Minister Kim Howells, this is necessary because 'one musician with modern amplification can make more noise than three without'. But since most noise complaints are nothing to do with music (acoustic or amplified), and even one unamplified performer would become illegal unless licensed, this rationale doesn't quite hang together.

Schedule 1, 'Provision of Regulated Entertainment', lists and defines what constitutes licensable live music and much more besides.
Temporary permissions are covered in Part 5.
Premises licences, which include the option for licensable entertainments, are dealt with in Part 3.
No fees have been published yet, but guidance notes available on the DCMS website repeat the estimates contained in the licensing White Paper of April 2000.

Neither the extensive media coverage or Parliamentary support for reform has influenced the small clique of senior civil servants and Ministers responsible for this legislation. Both the Musicians' Union and the Arts Council argued forcibly against the huge increase in licensing control, and jointly submitted amendments to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in the recent consultation on the draft legislation. But the DCMS rejected them. In that respect lobbying has failed. It may yet succeed, however, if sympathetic Lords support these amendments (the Bill is going first to the House of Lords).

All my efforts, those of the Arts Council working party, and those of supporting organisations, will now be focussed on this. In practical terms, this is what the Licensing Bill proposes for live music:
Pubs, bars, restaurants etc 110,000 licensed premises lose their automatic right to host one or two live musicians. A form of this licensing exemption can be traced back to 1899. Regular performance by even one musician, professional or amateur, amplified or unamplified, to be illegal without licensing permission.
Permission requires approval by police, fire service, environmental health dept, and local residents.
Local authority grants authorisation as part of 'premises licence' and may impose 'necessary' conditions (for public safety, crime and disorder, prevention of nuisance, and protection of children from harm).
If granted, the permission lasts for lifetime of business but may be revoked if noise/crime and disorder problems.
Licence fees to be standardised (at lower levels than now) and set centrally by Secretary of State. Fee to be no different if licensable entertainment provided.
If live music not authorised, live music to be illegal (save spontaneous renditions of Happy Birthday etc) - but see above -ed
Licence terms may be varied later if live music not chosen at outset. Variation process essentially the same as initial application (see above). A fee will be chargeable. Where live music not allowed under terms of premises licence, there is an option for up to 5 temporary permissions in a year, granted by a simple notification process (for a fee) provided under 500 people attend.
Private functions The distinction between public and private events is blurred. Until now most private gigs have been exempt from public entertainment licensing. Most gigs on public land have been exempt. This would no longer be the case. Many, if not most, performances in this context would become illegal unless licensed, either via the premises licence, a club premises certificate, or a temporary event notice. The wording of the Bill suggests that if a musician is hired to perform at a private event, this alone is sufficient to trigger the licensing requirement (this was hinted at in letters from Howells to MPs: 'it is clear that if a performer is paid, then the performance is public'.)
Any hitherto private performance 'with a view to raising money for charity' to become illegal unless licensed.
Live music in private clubs no longer exempt.
Churches All public concerts in churches to become illegal unless licensed. This provision extends legislation that currently applies only in London to the rest of England and Wales. This is very strange, because the London legislation dates from 1963, while the outside London legislation dates from 1982. Music 'for the purposes of, or for purposes incidental to a religious meeting or service' is exempt.
New concept of 'entertainment facilities' as licensing criterion. This is another strange provision. It seems that providing 'facilities for enabling persons to take part in entertainment', such as making music and/or dancing, is now to be illegal unless licensed. It is a confusing part of the Bill, but my reading of this is that recording studios, rehearsal studios, or practice rooms may be caught. It might also include musical instruments, record decks, microphones, amplifiers, PAs etc etc. I am seeking clarification from licensing lawyers on this one.
Bandwagons exempt! Curiouser and curiouser: live music performed in, or presumably on, moving vehicles is exempt! Recorded music - limited exemption Recorded music is legal without being licensed 'to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity which is not itself - (a) a description of entertainment falling within paragraph 2, or (b) the provision of entertainment facilities'. In other words, I think pub jukeboxes would be exempt, provided they weren't next to a dance floor (but how do you define a dance floor???)
If you can find time to read the legislation, particularly Schedule 1, I would be very grateful for your comments.
Any musician lawyers out there: your input could be particularly valuable.
Roger Gall


Sign a petition at: http://www.musiclovers.ukart.com

A Musician's Reaction

This Bill affects every performer, organiser, folk-dancer, singer & musician in the UK. You may think this bloke Roger (below) is being a bit extreme - in any case unlicenced jams & sing-arounds are illegal in many areas of England already. What upsets me a bit is that the strings are now being pulled very tight.

This new legislation will NOT STOP squat raves (recently in the news in the south-east)- those are illegal now, frequently involve a lot of property damage and are excellent places to buy skunk & E's (it is alleged ...). They take place unmolested because they are too big for police to break up.

What this law WILL do is to allow local councils to persecute folk clubs and stamp out jams & sing-arounds, free weekends and anything else that you have not given two weeks notice of and paid the right fee with the correct form in respect of.

The definition of entertainment you have to get permision for is now very wide - "... to any extent for members of the public .." and there is a widely-drafted list of definitions in Schedule 1 paragraph 2. One ray of hope is that Lord's Amendments tabled 2nd December seek remove religious and educational institutions from the overall definition, and plays, indoor sporting events and live music from the list - so someone's taking this seriously.

I have been pulled up on my assertion that even children's entertainers at a birthday party will need a licence. True, you couldn't call this a "Play" any more that you would call a stand-up comic or after dinner speaker a "Play" - BUT performers frequently use and make music & dance - getting the kids to sing & dance is all part of the fun. There is a "entertainment of a similar nature" provision just in case there's any doubt. Entertainers also play a "role" although I doubt if you could call what they do a Dramatic Piece, but on balance I stand by my opinion.

As to speakers and comics, I will accept that I've gone a bit over the top. It would take an effort of imagination to expand the definitions to fit them (but you never know) .....

If you feel strongly about this, please do write / mail to your MP NOW - also any of their Lordships that may appear relevant to you.

The draft Bill (PDF format) can be found at: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldbills/001/2003001.htm

http://www.beerfordbury.com/BBTWTA/EntAct.htm

Two in a bar to none in a bar - the Licensing Bill

You'll all know of the changes in law, that have generally fucked up, our gatherings outside, Public order act CJA etc .

Then there was the club licensing rules, drugs etc and the 'Barry Legg' Act.

And now, here comes the next one

Licensing Bill 2003

http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/articles/two_in_a_bar02.shtml

On 15 November 2002 the government published the Licensing Bill. It was launched as a 'central plank in the government's drive to tackle antisocial behaviour'. This comprehensive overhaul of liquor and public entertainment licensing proposes, among other things, to deregulate pub opening times. However, it also dramatically increases the licensing of live music performance, and replaces the 'two in a bar rule' with a 'none in a bar rule'.

The Musicians' Union welcomes the broad aim of the Licensing Bill insofar as deregulation of opening times may reduce binge-drinking, and alcohol-related crime and disorder. However, we oppose key elements of the reforms as they apply to live music. if all the provisions of this otherwise liberalising Bill were enacted, it would represent the biggest increase in licensing control of live music for over 100 years:

110,000 on-licensed premises in England and Wales (pubs, bars, restaurants etc) would lose their right to allow one or two musicians to perform. A form of this limited exemption from licensing control dates back to at least 1899.

Broadcast entertainment on satellite or terrestrial tv, or radio, is to be exempt from licensing under this Bill.

15,500 Churches outside London would lose their licensing exemption for public concerts.

5,000 registered members clubs lose their licensing exemption for public entertainment.

The very wide definitions in the Bill would cover carol singing and bell ringing (unless incidental to a religious meeting or service).

Thousands of private events, hitherto exempt, become licensable if 'for consideration and with a view to profit'.

The same applies to any private performance raising money for charity.

Tens of thousands of private wedding receptions, parties, and corporate functions would become illegal unless licensed (the wording of the Bill suggests that payment to musicians triggers the licensing requirement).

A new licensing criterion is introduced: the provision of 'entertainment facilities'. This could mean professional rehearsal studios, broadasting studios etc will be illegal unless licensed.

Musicians could be guilty of a criminal offence if they don't check first that premises hold the appropriate authorisation for their performance.

Buskers similarly potential criminals - unless they perform under a licensing authorisation.

The maximum penalty for unlicensed performance remains a £20,000 fine and six months in prison.

Story from a Reading Party

Got into the party about 3am. It turned out that a police helicopter had spent about 90 minutes flying low over the party site (which probably made more noise than the rig did!). Now for the nasty bit.
Some folks had tried to make it in across the field, only to find that TVP had a dog unit, and the pigs unleashed their hounds on a group of 6 munters. The dogs took down several ppl, to be backed up by some thuggish ossifers, who laid into one of the blokes who was lying on the ground, still being savaged by the dog. Four ossifers joined their canine companion, booting the poor guy, whilst one pig repeatedly coshed him over the head with a torch. A small young woman tried to intervene, only for the pigs to
start on her. They literally dragged her, kicking and screaming, across the field. I saw this girl later on the Sunday afternoon when she had been released. She was covered in bruises, and had some nasty cuff-burns on her wrists, where the police had twisted her arms up her back whilst she was cuffed. Apparently, she'd told them, at the point that the first ossifer had grabbed her, that she'd come quietly and peacefully - but they continued to beat her for some time. The police had removed their badges so that their numbers couldn't be taken. In total 5 or 6 people were arrested - for criminal damage (to the crops in this muddy field) caused by them peacefully walking across the field! Also police had been picking off cars around the party site, and searching them with dogs. At one stage TVP threatened to raid the party and strip-search everyone on site, and the system crew barricaded themselves into the main party building (a barn with a hunting lodge attached to the side), to keep the pigs (and their dogs, that they'd brought up on site, to chase munters around the site with) out.
The police then eventually left - having failed to stop the party - and there was no sign of Babylon presence after about 5am - until they showed up again later in the morning.

and to finish .........By this time the party had acquired a new cannon in its arsenal - a photography student rumoured to be from Reading, who was making a video documentary for her finals project.
She began filming, and interviewing them (successfully bluffing them
that she was an ITN journo!). At this stage the pigs attitude changed, and they backed off ... not to be seen again. The party finished at 4pm
Sunday afternoon (it was starting to get dark ...) - and there was no police presence on the way out.

Its worth mentioning that the only trouble or violence at this party was that executed by Thames Valley Police. The crowd was a safe one,
with lots of happy, friendly people, who just wanted to have a good party. Despite the police intimidation and violence (or perhaps, because of
it?) this was a real banging party that had the dancefloor full until they switched the music off late Sunday afternoon, with everyone determined
to make the best of it - and continue in defiance.