Published by Rachel Blundy at the London Evening Standard on 02/06/2014
A row over the decision to arrest a band hailed as London’s best buskers by Mayor Boris Johnson is raging on today after a community leader voiced his support for a police crackdown on busking.
Colin Bennett, chairman of the Leicester Square Association, has come out in support of police after last week’s arrest of the King’s Parade in Leicester Square.
The four-piece from Cricklewood were led away by officers last Wednesday as they came to the end of their set in front of a bewildered crowd.
They did not require a permit to perform but police arrested them under the terms of an archaic Metropolitan Police Act from 1839, claiming they were performing in order to earn cash from passers-by.
Mr Bennett has said that police were right to detain the musicians, adding that the authorities’ approach to buskers in the capital needed “managing”.
He said: “Entertainment is fine but it needs managing. At present it isn’t.
“Nobody wants draconian action, but without a clear policy in place, there is little left.”
Speaking about Mr Johnson’s ‘Back busking’ campaign, which aims to prevent parts of the city becoming ‘no-go areas’ for buskers, he said: “The Mayor’s busking campaign may be headline grabbing, but it lacks forethought, resulting in places like Leicester Square becoming unregulated free for all with the potential to project a poor image – not the world class destinations I’m sure he and we wish to convey.”
In response, band member Olly Corpe challenged Mr Bennett’s stance on the issue.
He told the Standard: “It seems Colin agrees with the Met’s decision to arrest us but wants busking to be managed – surely arresting buskers isn’t a good way of managing it?”
He continued: “He obviously hasn’t read up on the ‘Back busking’ campaign because the whole idea of it is to regulate and unify the busking rules around London, which is exactly what Colin is asking for.
“If he agrees with our arrest then he believes that all buskers in Leicester Square should be arrested as well. Considering our arrest took more than five hours, I’m wondering if Colin has considered the time and resources needed to do so.”
The band were released without charge but could still face a court summons.
Defending the arrest earlier this week, a spokesman for Scotland Yard said that “unlicensed street performing” contributed to “anti-social behaviour and is a driver of crime”.
In a statement, the Greater London Authority (GLA) said it was involved in discussions with police over the band’s arrest.
It said: “We were made aware of the arrests of the Kings Parade and note that they were released with no further action being taken. Since then we have been liaising with the Metropolitan Police to review what happened.
It added that representatives for the Mayor’s pro-busking campaign are set to meet next week.
It said: “The Mayor announced a high level taskforce in April, aimed at making London the most busking friendly city in the world. This is bringing together the police, boroughs and other organisations to develop a pan-London approach.”
The role of the state in this discourse is very interesting. At the very time when the rhetoric is about ‘rolling the state back’ (which is actually a metaphor for cuts to welfare and state provision), the intrusion of the state into the lives of its citizens is arguably increasing with mass surveillance, a preoccupation with social control and antisocial behaviour and the expansion of police powers. Coupled with the increasing prevalence of private interests in the public domain and the proliferation of pseudo-public spaces such as Liverpool One it strikes me that the need for a national advocacy body on behalf of informal access to public space for the arts is acute.
Busking is wrongly conflated by many with a generalised and vague concern about ‘antisocial’ behaviour and legislated against on that basis. The sole aim of the ‘best practise guidance’ is to differentiate street art/performance from antisocial behaviour/nuisance. It is not intended to be a prescriptive model whatsoever and would always need to taylored to a local context, preferably with input from a performer community in each locality.
Subsidiarity is an important principle, decisions should not be taken that affect the lives and livelihoods of people without their input. To this extent I have grave concerns about the state of local democracy at present and the proliferation of new forms of urban administration such as BIDS which often serve as a proxy for powerful commercial interests which are not answerable to local electors. Bitter experience in Camden shows that the ideal of liberal democracy is often far from reality when perceived commercial interests conflict with open access to public space. The idea of a neutral state preserving liberal values is a powerful one but often far removed from reality, particularly for those on the social margins (a space often occupied by buskers).
I’m glad that you recognise the importance of religious freedoms. They weren’t always protected in the way that they are now and the purpose of the Church of the Holy Kazoo is to lampoon the fact that religious freedoms are given priority over cultural freedoms. This is indefensible, the two should be of a piece.
I understand your concerns about formal/informal affiliations with any Chrisitian organisations. Keep Streets Live is not affiliated to Street Angels in any formal sense though I must disagree with your characterisation of them as any kind of ‘religious police force’. That use of language is misleading and seems to disallow the participation of voluntary organisations in the tapestry of our civic life if they have any religious motivation, a prejudice that would have hampered the emergence of many schools, universities and hospitals which had a religious foundation.
In the case of the street angels administering first aid to vulnerable people in the early hours of Friday morning and handing out flip flops is hardly akin to Talibanisitc purges of the public square. I need also to point out that the use of public space for worship/ preaching has often been contested and there is a historical link between the freedom to preach on the streets and the freedom to perform art and music.
As an organisation pariticipating in national discourse over the use of public space in civic life I think it is important that we maintain a dialogue with others who use that public space as we seek to resolve conflict and misunderstanding ( this is particularly important when fundamentalist religious groups conflict in public space and affect the street performing community).
The ‘best practise guidance’ in Liverpool is not mine alone. It has been agreed in dialogue between street performers, the local authority and the BID. At every stage a wide variety of people have been invited to give input and public meetings have been held to discuss issues.
Keep Streets Live is about working with local authorities wherever possible but from a position of fairness and mutuality. The guidance approach in Liverpool represents real progress from where we were two years ago when street performers faced exclusion and marginalisation in the city.
It is to the credit of the council for taking our concerns on board, but most of all to the commitment and courage of activists and the busking community in Liverpool who took a stand against the policy in 2012.