Our Reply to “Councilstaff”

Our Reply to “Councilstaff”

Photo: Syncretism Associates.

The Liverpool Echo ran a story on our campaign (‘Liverpool busking rules attacked by buskers as ‘highly restrictive‘) in which a Liverpool City Council spokesperson attempted to downplay the true nature of the new policy, and the extent to which it seeks to prescribe every little aspect of Liverpool’s street scene:

What is being implemented [in Liverpool] is standard practice in other major UK cities, including Manchester and London.

But sadly, however, this is untrue. We responded in the comments section on Liverpool Echo’s website that there is no policy in place in Manchester which resembles the one to be rolled out across Liverpool as of today, Monday 9th July, 2012.

Our point did not meet well with all of the Echo’s readers. One reader calling themselves “Councilstaff” responded with a quotation from Manchester Council‘s website:

Busking in Manchester city centre.

Please be aware that busking as live music is considered regulated entertainment under the Licensing Act 2003.

The quote went on to describe the areas in Manchester where busking is permitted.

 

We think our response merits quoting in full:

Hello “Councilstaff”, and thank you for your comment.

In reply to your quotation, the terms and conditions of Manchester Council’s street performance policy differ significantly from the terms and conditions of the policy that is to be rolled out by Liverpool City Council this coming Monday. It would be disingenuous to suggest or imply that they bear any similarity. There are at least four differences:

1. Manchester Council’s street performance policy is voluntary – street artists and performers are not legally required to sign up to it. Liverpool’s policy, in contrast, is mandatory – any person caught performing on the street without signing up to the new scheme stands to be prosecuted for trespass upon land underneath the public highway, land which Liverpool City Council claims it owns.

2. Street performers in Manchester were not issued with trespass notices from council officials in the run-up to Manchester Council’s implementation of their street performance policy. Performers in Liverpool, in contrast, have been issued with trespass notices from council officials in the run-up to the policy’s implementation.

3. Street performers in Manchester are not required by Manchester Council’s policy to be placed on a central database or to hold a valid photo-card identification. Nor, indeed, are they required to carry individual licenses in order to perform. In contrast, all of these requirements must be met in order for individual’s to perform on the streets of Liverpool under Liverpool City Council‘s new restrictive street performance policy.

4. The key difference, then, between Manchester’s street performance policy and Liverpool’s is that whilst Manchester’s merely spells outs the principles under which street performance is expected to occur, Liverpool’s consists in a set of arbitrary and coercive policy guidelines, guidelines which grant absurd powers to enforcement officers (the power to stop a performance if they think the performer is not good enough, for example, or if they take the performer’s act or attire to be ‘offensive‘). In contrast to Liverpool City Council’s new policy, then, Manchester’s policy gives street artists and performers scope for manoeuvre. Unlike Liverpool’s new policy, Manchester‘s policy does not descend into arbitrary policy stipulations.

But just because Manchester council do indeed have a policy which regulates street performance and busking (albeit on a voluntary basis), that is no reason to conclude that Liverpool’s new policy must therefore be legitimate. Quite the contrary. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport‘s position as of December 2006 is that busking is not one the activities which falls under the intent of The Licensing Act 2003. They have published the following commitment:

To make clear in [Licensing] legislation that the policy intention is to exclude e.g. carol singers, buskers, puppet shows for children and poetry readings, from requiring a licence. This measure would most likely be delivered via regulation / and or Guidance.1

The attempt by councils to bring busking under the provision of that act, both in case of Liverpool and of Manchester, is therefore legally questionable at the very least.

In light of this, we feel that Liverpool and Manchester councils stand to benefit from working with streets performers and the Musician’s Union in a genuinely consultative process to find a non-coercive busking policy that works for all sides.

Best wishes,
Keep Streets Live
http://keepstreetslive.com

  1. ‘Lifting the burden – Improving and realising community capacity’, DCMS December 2006, ‘Areas to be explored to achieve further reductions in administrative burdens’, p23, para H. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/LiftingtheBurden.pdf
This post was written by

2 Comments on "Our Reply to “Councilstaff”"

  • Greece has taken the defensive strategy to a total new
    level. Articles to play containment soccer, their only attacking
    menace seems to occur from established pieces. It was solid enough to
    see the Greeks qualify but their tall timber at the
    again will find the technically savvy Argentineans and bodily adept Nigerians as well
    significantly to get over. Korea Republic can chalk this one particular up to
    expertise. Several of their players collect spend checks in Europe, but
    the talent pool is a small shallow. They’re going to make
    the opposition work for the details and attack with all the gusto
    they can muster.

  • A Defence Against Beauro/Legalistic Bullying On The Streets ( * or Uncanny Similarities, Shared Petty Tyrannies ! )

    Congratulations in coming up with a ‘well-articulated’ ( proto-legalise, yeah ditto ! ) defense against the ‘atypical’ beauro/legalistic bullying a ‘council’ will come up with when it desires to ‘break-up’ otherwise creative cultural activity that threatens ( or what the ‘political’ body ‘percieves’ poses a threat to ) ‘big-boy’ commercial interests. See. New Labour, Gordan Brown, Local Authorities & the rise ( tho’ not yet fall ) of the BID ( or Business Investment Development Area/Scheme ).

    Sad tho’ ( quite indefensible ) Streetlives.orgs support for ( & no mention of complaints of ) those found guility ( by the ‘official’ Justices system ) of ‘outlaw’ busker bullying on our streets.

    For example the whole ‘street’ sordid affair involving quote your ” friend in Bham ” Anthony Scott ( Q. Streetlive.orgs or Buskers Unregulated ‘good’ mate ? ). Nevermind merely rising up against ‘council’ officials & the like ( yes in my learned ‘opinion’ many of them ‘repressed’ haters, bullies etc ) what about a more ‘specific’ rallying cry ( ‘vehemently’ critical ! ) against the likes of Scott bullying & harrassing others on the streets ( eg. attacking ‘defenceless’ female Buskers, intimidation threats to cut off fingers, ‘spitting’ on amplifiers, ‘relentless’ social media smear campaigns follwing a dispute ( easily remedied in the ‘civil’ sense ) over a ‘city-centre’ busking spot. attempted post-incident ‘online’ social media smears etc ! ).

    No for so-called ‘activists’ ( wallowing, bathing in their ‘hallowd’, moral, crusading selves ! ) strangely ‘silence’, not even a hush. Esoteric, unearthly disquieting especially given the social ‘fact’ of him finally recieving a suspended ‘prison’ sentence from Bham Magistrates court, him found ‘guilty’ of an actual ‘criminal’ ( not ‘civil’ ) offence i.e. his 2nd ‘harrassment’ conviction!. ( See. Bham Mail 27 Oct 2015 ” Birmingham Busker Who Terrorised Teenage Rival Gets Suspended Jail Sentence ) .

    I ‘comment’ elswhere ( see Newcastle Blog ) how Social Realist film Director Ken Loach described the contemporary Russian economy ( Putins Russia ! ) as a form of ‘Gangster’ Capitalism whilst appearing as a panel guest on a recent episode of BBC1’s ‘Question Time ‘ & addressing a Gloucester audience.To ‘contextualise’ what I ( & many others ), & not ‘hyperbolistically’, call the Tony Scott busking ‘scandal’, it must be ‘realised’ that it occured in Birmingham during a ‘significant’ phase of a year or so ago when the ‘city-centre’ streets were ‘host’ to a ‘creeping’ kind of ‘busking’ gangsterism,

    Eg. ‘Female’ buskers having their ‘amps’ spat upon, intimidated & then socially media bullied ( ‘smeared’ ) over busking spot disputes, the incidence of little 2 or 3 man ‘narc’ clicques forming around particular best ‘spots’ & them ‘manipulatively’ ( selfishly ! ) seeking to dominate them via ‘mobile’ phone links/connections etc, buskers arriving at spots first ( myself incl. ) intimidated, threatened, bullied by eg. being attemptedly ‘brushed’ aside on the spot, set up on & played over etc .

    In Stratford upon Avon this summer there were even intances of ‘busking’ bungs being passed around ( yeah ‘Chigago’ politics style ‘cash for spots’ ) wherebye ‘select’ street performers ( obviously vulnerable to the take ! ) were approached & payed ‘moneys’ for their ‘space’ !. This ‘dodgy’ nasty little practise creating a kind of ‘petty’ corrupt atmosphere, a moral ‘tone’ running counter to the ‘democratic’ spirit of the relatively fair busking ‘code’ set in place in this ‘busy’ Tourist town. Importantly perpertrated by known ‘associates’ of Streetlive.org.

    Of course with regards Buskers & the practice of Street Performing ( getting back to the issues, & general ‘defence’ points contained in the above Blog ! ) one can only talk of ‘relative’ fairness when speaking of BIDs, their city/town centre style of ‘management’, their relationships with local ‘political’ authorites i.e. the Council & ‘local’ commercial ‘High Street’ interests . To back this point up I cite the recent ‘experiential’ example below

    Eg. Me stating, that despite the fact that ‘busking’ in the this popular Tourist town is ‘formally’ welcomed ( See. Stratforward BID website ) nevertheless the ‘established’ ( generally agreed upon ) 3 or 4 years old busking code revolves around a a 2hr ‘revolving’ spot scheme not the 1hr one as ‘advertised’ ( Nb. without ‘consultation’ & rather scurrulously re-worded by last years ‘new’ Manager, herself now gone ( left the post ! ) & replaced by current new Director ! . )

    * Edit = A correction ( insert ‘the’ ) eg. ” replaced by ‘the’ current new Director ! ” .

    The main issue I’d like to raise here ( in the ‘latter’ context ) being Q. Is it only ‘Quasi’ Buearu/Legalistic organisations such as the Local Athority affiliated BID’s that are capable of ( ‘guilty’ of ) just that i.e. Orwell like ( blatant & ‘cynical’ ) ‘maniplation’ of language & the law. so as to serve best their own wider ‘poltical’ interests nevermind the ‘common’ man ( consumer ‘subject’ ) or ordinary common-sense ( & well behaved ) ‘Busker’ on the street ? .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>