jacky
New Member 
Posts: 13
|
Post by jacky on Nov 19, 2009 16:49:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by theoldie on Nov 20, 2009 22:18:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Nov 21, 2009 14:56:10 GMT
Thank you theoldie for that Faryl link. I thought it was a very good interview and it shows just how well she is settling into her professional life, yet keeping a down-to-earth head on her shoulders.
Peter S.
|
|
Martin
Global Moderator
HWI Management Team
Posts: 3,339
|
Post by Martin on Nov 22, 2009 15:56:07 GMT
The Variety Club Award ceremony is currently showing on C5 with Faryl yet to appear. Martin ps 30 mins later  Faryl sang "The Prayer" with the Soldiers to accompany her. |
|
|
|
Post by theoldie on Nov 24, 2009 17:37:56 GMT
Here is a link to a photo of Faryl and Hayley at Twickers. It is a Faryl tweet. twitpic.com/qr829 |
|
|
|
Post by theoldie on Nov 24, 2009 17:59:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 24, 2009 18:37:00 GMT
The politest and gentlest answer would be: "I hope the good people of Kettering have the sense to vote these people out next time." In the interests of not provoking the swear filter unduly, I shall leave it there  |
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Nov 24, 2009 19:28:26 GMT
Nothing against Faryl, but this law wasn't placed there without a valid reason, was it? The system works just fine if everyone plays by the same rules. HMV didn't get their paperwork together and now they are exposed for this failure. |
|
|
|
Post by nicola on Nov 24, 2009 19:41:54 GMT
There's the law, and there's being pedantic.
This is being pedantic. It's a waste of energy and money to take such a petty thing to court. What's next? Trying j-walkers?
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 24, 2009 21:54:23 GMT
Nicola's right.
The point of this law is to regulate noise nuisance (And raise additional revenue) from entertainment venues, such as pubs and clubs, that have regular music nights or otherwise make money from entertaining their patrons. It enables the council to prevent unwanted noise in residential areas at night and otherwise keep track of where the noise is supposed to be and where it isn't.
Street performer licences are pretty much the same thing, only for venueless entertainers. Same idea, too.
The law is most definitely NOT intended to stop the local-girl-made-good from promoting her album in the local store. The council may or may not be technically within the letter of the law (Though that seems to be in some doubt) but they certainly are not observing the spirit.
|
|
|
|
Post by roger on Nov 24, 2009 22:54:05 GMT
Nicola's right. The point of this law is to regulate noise nuisance... With respect, Nicola is not correct and Elliot is only correct up to a point. If a public venue (indoors or outdoors) wishes to host a public performance, subject to certain exceptions, they are required by law to hold a valid music license. If they do not, and if an accident should occur that results in injury or personal loss, their Public Liability insurance policy would be invalidated. It is the local council's responsibilty to ensure that a music license is held. The application process would include consulation with the police, the fire department, health and safety executives and numerous other authorities, all of which is to ensure the safety of the performer, the venue and the public. In this particular instance, it would therefore appear (see next para) that the KBC are doing exactly what they are legally bound to do. I am not familiar with the details of this particular event so I cannot be sure if a license was required or not. For example, it would depend whether Faryl was singing with a microphone and sound system or acoustically. It would also depend whether she was singing to a backing tape or live musicians and, if the latter, how many. There are certain other criteria about which I am neither familiar nor up to date. But we have to assume that a license was required (and the KBC would know that) in which case, the public should be thankful that they are doing their job. Had they not done so, they would be guilty of negligence. Roger formerly Liability Claims Dept of a leading insurance company! |
|
|
|
Post by nicola on Nov 24, 2009 22:58:18 GMT
We know it's against the law, Roger - it's actually the act of putting this through a court! I'm currently on Jury Service, and I appreciate how much energy, money and time goes into every single case that comes to court. True, it's going to magstrates, but something like this could have been settled outside of court in the first place. It's just ridiculous to take it this far.
|
|
|
|
Post by roger on Nov 24, 2009 23:07:16 GMT
...something like this could have been settled outside of court in the first place. It's just ridiculous to take it this far. Hi Nicola, It could, but presumably, it wasn't. The KBC therefore have no choice but to go to court no matter how ridiculous that may seem. The costs may be significant but nowhere near as great as they would be in the event of a major accident occuring. Roger |
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,699
|
Post by Dave on Nov 25, 2009 2:03:13 GMT
The BBC report news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8377024.stm puts this into perspective and in my opinion points the finger of blame at HMV: "The council said the firm has refused to retrospectively apply for a £21 licence for the event, which took place in March." A big organization like HMV must have known the law on this and will have made a nice profit from sales of Faryl's CD. For them to argue over a £21 licence (which they seem to have been offered in retrospect) is ludicrous, petty and wasteful of rate payers' and tax payers' money. I think HMV are being ridiculous, not the Council. It's a bit like a loudmouth on the street daring a policeman to arrest him... the policeman is left with no choice. The only way I'd criticize the Council over this is if it turns out that it isn't normal practice for Councils in other towns to ask for this kind of licence... it makes me wonder if there's more to the story than we so far know (could HMV Head Office be testing the law if it's unclear, for the sort of "performance" that Faryl did?). Dave |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 25, 2009 3:21:17 GMT
£21 certainly seems like a very silly sum to be quibbling over. I assumed (Rather foolishly, it would seem) that the amount in question would be rather larger than mere petty cash. Either HMV truly believe they are in the right legally (Which may or may not be possible, judging from Roger's post above - and he surely knows far more than I about the legal position!), or they are hoping the council will back down - but over £21 it has to be the former, surely. Unless Dave is right that this is some kind of test case, which would certainly make a lot of sense... In any case, this is starting to look rather intriguing, isn't it?  |
|
